We investigate whether consistent non-GAAP reporting is associated with investment efficiency. Prior research finds a positive association between non-GAAP reporting and investment levels, concluding that it represents overinvestment. We corroborate this positive association, but additional tests are not consistent with the conclusion of inefficient overinvestment. Specifically, we explore the relation between investment and future cash flows as a proxy for the realization of investments in positive net present value projects. We find that the investments of firms that consistently report non-GAAP metrics are associated with similar or higher future cash flows than the investments of firms reporting only GAAP earnings, which is consistent with efficient investment. We observe similar associations in multiple specifications, performance horizons, and outcome variables, including future returns and earnings. Given the prevalence of non-GAAP reporting and the SEC's ongoing concern with the consequences of non-GAAP disclosure, our analyses offer timely evidence relevant to this important discussion.

Firm life‐cycle stage reflects a firm's current strategic direction toward exploration independent of age or size. We provide evidence that young life‐cycle firms are particularly vulnerable to negative innovation consequences from financial regulation but do not appear to experience any compensating financial reporting quality (FRQ) benefits. Using a generalized difference‐in‐differences design around Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), we document a significant reduction in both research and development (R&D) spending and innovation outputs for young life‐cycle stage firms after regulation. Declines in innovation manifest both from the diversion of scarce resources and from the imposition of an organizational culture mismatched to the pursuit of explorative innovation, resulting in a less generalizable and less diversified patent portfolio. However, we find no evidence that improvements to FRQ materialize to offset these costs. Event study analyses suggest that this negative impact was expected by market participants, and postregulation returns confirm this expectation.

Researchers typically infer real earnings management when a firm's operating and investing activities differ from industry norms. A significant problem with classifying deviations from industry averages as myopic earnings management is that companies can change their operating and investing decisions for strategic business reasons rather than to mislead stakeholders. Using principal components analysis, we systematically evaluate existing measures and develop a comprehensive real activities measure to better capture earnings manipulation. Our measure reflects (i) deviations from industry averages across multiple activities and (ii) other signals of manipulation. This approach is promising because, although there are many sources of abnormal activities, manipulation is more likely the cause when managers engage in multiple income‐increasing abnormal activities that coincide with other signals that indicate an elevated risk of manipulation. This simple approach results in a metric that associates negatively with future operating performance and earnings persistence, yields high‐power tests, and captures manipulation reasonably well across most life‐cycle stages. Importantly, this approach performs better than the standard real earnings management metrics across all dimensions. Specifically, it generates the expected reduction in future earnings and reduced earnings persistence in 82% of the tests compared to 36% and 46% in common alternatives. Also, because this innovation does not require a long time‐series or rely on future period realizations for classification, it can be useful in more research settings than other recent innovations in the literature.