This paper investigates the effects of regulatory interventions on contracting relationships within firms by examining the impacts of the Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act on CEO compensation. Using panel data of the S&P 1500 firms, it quantifies welfare gains from a principal–agent model with hidden information and hidden actions. It finds that SOX: (1) reduced the conflict of interest between shareholders and their CEOs, mainly by reducing shareholder loss from CEOs deviating from their goal of expected value maximization; (2) increased the cost of agency, or the risk premium CEOs are paid to align their interests with those of shareholders; (3) increased administrative costs in the primary sector (which includes utilities and energy) but the effect in the other two broadly defined sectors, services and consumer goods, was more nuanced; and (4) had no effect on the attitude of CEOs toward risk.

We provide new causal evidence for the impact of equity financing incentive on firms’ voluntary disclosure decisions by exploring the 2008 seasoned equity offering deregulation, which exogenously facilitates small firms’ access to public equity financing and increases their equity issuance incentives without changing their business and information environments. We argue that the heightened equity financing incentive due to the deregulation can motivate a firm to increase disclosures even in the period without actual equity issuance, because such disclosures, by signaling a commitment to disclosure, could reduce the cost of equity in case the firm issues equity in the future. Consistent with this argument, we find that, benchmarking against control firms that are not affected by the deregulation, an average treatment firm that is affected by the deregulation but does not issue equity provides more management earnings forecasts in the post-deregulation period. The effect is mainly driven by repeated forecasters and is more pronounced for firms with greater equity financing needs and firms with higher information asymmetry in the equity market.

This study exploits an exogenous change to audit committee policy in Canada and presents new evidence on how high-quality corporate governance mitigates managerial resource diversion and improves firm values. We first examine why some firms listed on the Toronto Venture Exchange (TSX Venture) voluntarily adopted the more stringent governance policy in 2004 that requires all audit committee members to be independent and financially literate. We develop a parsimonious analytical model that shows that both compliance costs and financing needs have an impact on firms' adoption decisions. Confirming the model's predictions, we find that TSX Venture firms with low compliance costs and greater future financing needs are more likely to adopt the new policy voluntarily. The analytical model also shows that high-quality audit committees enhance firm values by reducing the likelihood of managerial resource diversion. Consistent with the predictions of our analytical model, we find that the adoption decision has a positive impact on firm value and a negative impact on firms' cost of equity capital for both Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture firms. As corroborating evidence of the economic impact of the more stringent governance policy, we also show that both TSX and TSX Venture firms have improved investment efficiency following the adoption decisions. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the paper.

This study examines whether the revised lease standards (ASC 842 and IFRS 16) make U.S. GAAP-based accounting amounts more comparable with IFRS-based accounting amounts. Our study is motivated by the FASB and the IASB’s call for research on the comparability of the revised lease standards. We find that U.S. GAAP and IFRS pairs that are high operating lease users experience a larger increase in accounting comparability after the adoption of revised lease standards than low operating lease U.S. GAAP-IFRS pairs. Additionally, our results suggest that the improvement comes more from the changes to the balance sheet rather than the income statement and is more pronounced for IFRS firms from countries with stronger accounting enforcement. Lastly, we show that analysts who are more GAAP-focused (IFRS-focused) prior to the standard change are more likely to increase their forecasting of book value per share for IFRS (U.S. GAAP) firms.

This article studies how the three-way interaction among shareholders, creditors, and managers shapes firms’ executive compensation. Firms with a higher ownership share by “dual holders”—institutional investors that simultaneously hold equity and bond of the company—adopt a less risk-inducing compensation structure: less stock options and more inside debt. Exploiting financial institution mergers that increase or decrease dual ownership for portfolio companies, we identify a causal link between dual ownership and CEO compensation policies. Mutual fund proxy voting data suggest that shareholder voting is an important channel for dual holders to implement less convex contracts.

This study investigates whether auditors incorporate investor information demand when determining key audit matter (KAM) disclosures. We measure investor information demand using a unique dataset of investor inquiries submitted through investor interactive platforms (IIPs) established by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. At the topic level, we find that auditors are more likely to disclose a given topic as a KAM when investors raise more inquiries on that topic. At the aggregate level, a higher proportion of inquiries devoted to accounting issues is associated with both a greater number of KAMs and longer KAM disclosures. Importantly, following the introduction of KAM reporting, managers’ footnote disclosures become more aligned with heightened investor inquiries, reinforcing our interpretation that the documented effects reflect auditors’ responses to investor inquiries rather than merely mirroring managerial disclosure changes. Overall, our findings suggest that auditors incorporate investor information demand into KAM disclosures.

We examine how the rent-seeking incentives of local government motivate private firms11In this paper “private firms” refers to listed non state-owned-enterprises, the ultimate controlling shareholder of which is an individual. listed in China to establish political connections, and whether such connections lead to more concentrated corporate control structures. Our results show that such firms are more likely to establish political connections in regions in which the local economy is less market-oriented or in which the government has more discretion in allocating economic resources. This is consistent with the notion that the presence of incentives for government officials to engage in rent seeking motivates private firms to look for alternative safeguards through political connections. We also find that the controlling owners of politically connected firms tend to concentrate their shareholdings and dominate the board of directors by occupying the position of either chairman or CEO, which supports the conjecture that a concentrated control structure facilitates rent seeking through political connections and allows the controlling owner to retain all of the benefits arising from connections with politicians.

Employing a large sample of 7246 firms across 38 economies from 2000 to 2013, we show a positive relation between foreign institutional ownership (FIO) and firms' speed of leverage adjustment. This positive relation is concentrated for over-leveraged firms that need to decrease financial leverage to rebalance their capital structures. We validate our findings using a 2SLS regression and a DiD estimation to exploit the exogenous variations in FIO generated by the inclusion of MSCI membership and the passage of the JGTRRA. These results suggest that foreign institutional investors play an important monitoring role in mitigating agency conflicts between shareholders and managers. Overall, this paper lends support to the dynamic trade-off theory.

We use China as a laboratory to test the effect of government quality on cash holdings. We build on, and extend, the existing literature on government expropriation and its interaction with firm-level agency problems by proposing a financial constraint mitigation argument. We find that firms hold less cash when local government quality is high, which is not consistent with the state expropriation argument, but supports the financial constraint mitigation argument. A good government lowers the investment sensitivity to cash flows and cash sensitivity to cash flows, decreases cash holdings more significantly in private firms, and improves access to bank and trade credit financing. We also test and find support for Stulz's (2005) model on the interaction between government and firm agency problems.

Facing several decisions, people may consider each one in isolation or integrate them into a single optimization problem. Isolation and integration may yield different choices, for instance, if uncertainty is involved, and only one randomly selected decision is implemented. We investigate whether the random incentive system in experiments that measure ambiguity aversion provides a hedge against ambiguity, making ambiguity‐averse subjects who integrate behave as if they were ambiguity neutral. Our results suggest that about half of the ambiguity averse subjects integrated their choices in the experiment into a single problem, whereas the other half isolated. Our design further enables us to disentangle properties of the integrating subjects' preferences over compound objects induced by the random incentive system and the choice problems in the experiment.