I examine two hypotheses of auditor resignation: litigation risk and clientele adjustment. I find resignation is positively related to increased client legal exposure, and to occurrence of clientele mismatch. The summary-measure approach allows me to distinguish clientele mismatch caused by changes in auditor (supply-side) characteristics vs. changes in client (demand-side) characteristics. Evidence suggests resignation is likely driven by supply-side changes. I also find investors react negatively to resignations, and the price drop varies cross-sectionally with litigation risk. Further, the tendency of dropped firms to engage small auditors is positively related to increased litigation risk, and to mismatch with large auditors.

This study examines the effect of corporate tax enforcement on managerial self-dealing, with a focus on manipulated gifts of insider stock. Prior work suggests that managers employ a variety of manipulative techniques to maximize their personal tax benefits from donating corporate stock, such as strategically timing gifts based on private information and fraudulently backdating gifts to the date with the highest price. Building on prior literature suggesting that the tax authority can discipline managerial misconduct, we hypothesize that IRS scrutiny from a corporate tax audit raises managers' perceived risk of detection, who refrain from making manipulated stock gifts while the firm is under audit. Using a novel, firm-specific measure to identify firms under audit, we find direct evidence that heightened scrutiny from tax enforcement serves as an effective monitoring mechanism and reduces managers' self-dealing behavior.

We examine the relation between risk and IPO underpricing and test two aspects of the litigation-risk hypothesis: (1) firms with higher litigation risk underprice their IPOs by a greater amount as a form of insurance (insurance effect) and (2) higher underpricing lowers expected litigation costs (deterrence effect). To adjust for the endogeneity bias in previous studies, we use a simultaneous equation framework. Evidence provides support for both aspects of the litigation-risk hypothesis.

Does enhanced regulatory transparency facilitate alignment of private and public enforcement? Utilizing the SEC's 2004 decision to publicly disclose its comment letters, we explore the actions of the SEC and shareholder litigants. We find the two parties converge more on enforcement targets after the public disclosure. The increased alignment is attributable to public scrutiny of SEC oversight enhancing regulator incentives and reducing regulatory capture, and to shareholder plaintiffs gaining information previously accessible only by regulators, enabling litigants to identify cases with “merit.” These findings suggest regulatory transparency enhances the complementarity of public and private enforcement, potentially improving enforcement outcomes.

We examine how corporate social media affects the capital market consequences of firms’ disclosure in the context of consumer product recalls. Product recalls constitute a “product crisis” exposing the firm to reputational damage, loss of future sales, and legal liability. During such a crisis it is crucial for the firm to quickly and directly communicate its intended message to a wide network of stakeholders, which, in turn, renders corporate social media a potentially useful channel of disclosure. While we document that corporate social media, on average, attenuates the negative price reaction to recall announcements, the attenuation benefits of corporate social media vary with the level of control the firm has over its social media content. In particular, with the arrival of Facebook and Twitter, firms relinquished complete control over their social media content, and the attenuation benefits of corporate social media, while still significant, lessened. Detailed Twitter analysis confirms that the moderating effect of social media varies with the level of firm involvement and with the amount of control exerted by other users: the negative price reaction to a recall is attenuated by the frequency of tweets by the firm, while exacerbated by the frequency of tweets by other users.

While shareholders have strong incentives to limit value-destroying perquisite consumption, it is challenging to identify such perquisites. Many corporate assets that enable forms of perquisite consumption also provide operational benefits. Corporate jets represent a potent example. We find business-related flights increase firm performance. Our results also highlight the channels through which jet use can either enhance or destroy firm value. Consistent with the benefits of information gathering and monitoring, firms with soft and complex information that is difficult to transmit remotely are more likely to fly to company subsidiaries and plants, and these flights positively affect firm value. In contrast, among firms with weak governance structures where flights are more likely motivated by agency factors, jet use is more likely to be value-decreasing. The ability to differentiate has important implications in today's activism environment.

We explore whether managers’ strong desire for good performance distorts their expectations and, consequently, corporate investment efficiency. We find that managers overweight favorable information and underweight unfavorable information, resulting in optimistic earnings guidance. We construct an ex ante measure of optimism and show that greater optimism is associated with a lower inventory investment efficiency: Managers overinvest in inventory, resulting in lower inventory turnover and increased incidence and severity of inventory writedowns. We also find motivational optimism influences firms’ financial reporting and is associated with an increased incidence of financial misreporting. Our results are consistent with the psychology theory of motivated reasoning, which emphasizes the distortive effects of preferences on beliefs and judgments.

We examine whether the media can act as a friction that hampers the efficiency of corporate labor investment, a decision that attracts significant media attention. We develop a new measure of media exposure that takes into account the circulation and geographic proximity of a comprehensive set of media outlets. We show media exposure leads to greater labor investment inefficiency. Closer examination reveals that media exposure is associated with firms underhiring, but not underfiring. This underinvestment in labor by managers helps avoid future layoffs but is inefficient in that firms are left understaffed relative to their economic fundamentals. Further, we find that managers’ concerns about their personal reputation, but not the firm’s reputation, primarily drive our results. Our findings illustrate that the media can serve as a friction for, in addition to being a facilitator or monitor of, corporate labor investment decisions. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources identified in the paper.