Knowledge that Transforms

Abstract We examine whether variation in regulatory leniency is associated with the cost of deposits in the banking industry. We predict that lenient regulatory supervision allows for greater bank risk-taking due to delayed intervention, resulting in a higher cost of deposits. Our main finding is a positive association between banks’ cost of uninsured deposits and the leniency of their state regulators, incremental to observable measures of risk and performance. We further show that this result is stronger for riskier banks and when uninsured depositors have a greater ability or incentive to influence deposit rates. These findings suggest that the leniency of bank regulators is priced in uninsured deposit rates and further our understanding of the factors associated with regulatory leniency in the banking industry.

Abstract We examine whether and how language barriers influence a country’s decision to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Our findings reveal that as the distance between a country’s official language and English (i.e., linguistic distance) increases, the likelihood and speed of a country adopting IFRS decrease. Our evidence is consistent with the notion that language barriers impose significant information costs on preparers and users of financial reporting, making IFRS costlier to adopt for countries with severe language barriers. In further analysis, we find that such information costs materialize when these countries eventually adopt IFRS. Specifically, firms in countries with the most severe language barriers experience a worsened post-adoption information environment, as evidenced by increased analyst forecast errors and widened bid-ask spreads. Overall our study suggests that language barriers impede achievement of international accounting harmonization by increasing the costs associated with adopting, understanding, and applying IFRS.

Abstract We study the dynamics of information demand and supply in capital markets, focusing on how firms’ disclosures align with analysts’ information needs. Using a novel dataset from Visible Alpha, we analyze granular data from analysts’ forecasting models to understand the breadth of information they seek and how firms meet these demands through mandatory and voluntary disclosures. We document significant variation in the complexity of analysts’ models and the extent of firms’ disclosures, leading to some items in analysts’ models remaining undisclosed. This unmet information demand gives rise to a novel concept we term “uncertainty about the past” ( UP ). We investigate its implications for key capital market outcomes, including analyst forecast dispersion, market reactions to earnings announcements, and stock market liquidity. Our results demonstrate that UP plays a significant role in shaping the information environment, challenging the assumption that earnings announcements fully resolve uncertainty about past performance.

Abstract How important is equal access to mandatory disclosures? We exploit the postal strike of 1970 that caused a delay in the delivery of annual reports via mail. This strike created unequal access because certain investors (e.g., institutions) had both the incentives and ability to obtain the annual reports by other means. Theory predicts that, when differential access exists, adverse selection problems intensify, causing a decline in stock trading. Our findings support this prediction: stock trading volume decreased by approximately 28% for firms unable to deliver the annual reports to shareholders during the strike, and this trading decline gradually dissipated afterward. Further tests confirm adverse selection as the primary mechanism. Overall, our paper underscores the importance of equal access to annual reports—a key mandated disclosure—and demonstrates the value of these reports to shareholders, as evidenced by their reluctance to trade absent this information.

Against the backdrop of an increasing threat of misinformation on social media, several countries have enacted regulations to curb the spread of misinformation. This study examines how corporate social media strategy responds to misinformation regulations. Using a large cross-country dataset of corporate tweets and a stacked regression analysis, we show that misinformation regulations lead to less corporate social media disclosure. This result suggests that, by deterring misinformation, these regulations reduce firms’ need to use social media to counteract its adverse effects. Additional analyses show that the effect strengthens among countries with higher social media usage and those with stronger investor protection but weakens for firms with stronger information environments. Finally, we provide direct evidence that firms post fewer tweets refuting misinformation about themselves following the enactment of these regulations.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) has classified sustainability topics as material or not material for investors. We leverage the staggered release of the SASB classifications from 2013 to 2016 to examine whether and how they prompt changes in U.S. firms' sustainability performance. We measure sustainability performance using RepRisk scores, which reflect environmental, social, and governance (ESG) incidents. We find that RepRisk scores on sustainability topics classified as material decrease following the release of SASB classifications. Conversely, incident scores on nonmaterial sustainability topics increase. This suggests that firms improve their sustainability performance on topics the SASB deems relevant for investors while simultaneously performing worse on irrelevant topics. Firms adjust their internal sustainability policies to mirror these changes. The changes in sustainability performance occur primarily through two channels. We document that higher exposure to the classifications from shareholder pressure and sustainability-linked executive compensation prompts managers to prioritize sustainability topics classified as relevant for investors over irrelevant ones.

Abstract This study examines the relation between U.S. managers’ short-term exposure to air pollution and their forecasting ability. We focus on air pollution due to PM 2.5 , a fine particulate matter that can easily penetrate an indoor, climate-controlled environment. We show that the short-term ambient PM 2.5 level at the firm’s headquarters before a management earnings forecast issuance is negatively associated with the accuracy of the forecast. Also, the short-term ambient PM 2.5 level before an earnings announcement is negatively related to the likelihood of a concurrent management forecast issuance. These relations occur at PM 2.5 levels below the U.S. air quality standard. A battery of additional tests validate these findings. These results suggest that a transitory exposure to PM 2.5 at levels common in the United States temporarily decreases managers’ forecasting ability. The temporary cognitive impairment from short-term exposure to modest levels of PM 2.5 , as documented in epidemiological studies, is presumably the reason.

Abstract The channels through which analyst research data are distributed are complex. The I/B/E/S database is the dominant source for analyst earnings estimates for academics, but there are numerous other channels, some of which are cost prohibitive for many investors. We describe the distribution of analyst research and examine whether a high-cost alternative distribution channel, TR Research, is characterized by higher quality estimates than those available from I/B/E/S. We examine analyst forecast accuracy, bias, and informativeness and find that TR Research estimates are more accurate and less biased than estimates exclusively distributed via I/B/E/S. We further find that TR Research estimates are associated with greater market reaction and lower information asymmetry, consistent with the higher quality of these estimates. Our study highlights differences in brokerage and analyst incentives regarding research distribution and documents a specific setting where a subset of investors pays for access to superior analyst research.

Abstract The choice between historical cost and fair value measurement is one of the most debated issues among accounting academics and practitioners. We use the election of the fair value option (FVO) to study the effects of entities’ measurement choices on accounting comparability. The FVO enables entities to use different measurement bases for similar assets and liabilities, raising questions about whether the FVO compromises or enhances comparability. Using a sample of US banks, we find that FVO elections increase comparability both across FVO electing banks and between FVO electing banks and banks that never elect the FVO but only if the FVO elections comply with the intent of the standard setters to remedy accounting mismatches. Overall our results suggest that banks elect the FVO to better present their economics, yielding higher comparability.

Abstract This paper investigates how tax loss carryforward (LCF) rules influence corporate bankruptcies and market-wide productivity. Analyzing data from 29 European countries, I find that stricter LCF deductibility limits significantly increase bankruptcy likelihoods. This is because stricter LCF deductibility limits lower the present value of net operating losses (NOLs) as tax assets, reducing the incentive to keep struggling firms alive. This effect is especially pronounced for business group firms, which can support struggling affiliates through internal capital markets to strategically exploit NOLs. My results suggest that lenient LCF deductibility limits can sustain unproductive firms, impacting market-wide resource allocation and productivity. These findings highlight the trade-off in tax policy between supporting firm survival and ensuring efficient resource allocation.