We examine whether disproportionate insider control, or the divergence between insider voting and cash flow rights at dual-class firms, influences the extent to which stock price reflects information about future firm performance. We find that current returns incorporate less information about future earnings and cash flows as disproportionate insider control increases. However, monitoring by influential institutional investors, strong board oversight, and high-quality disclosure significantly attenuate this effect, such that disproportionate insider control does not result in less informative stock prices. Collectively, our findings reveal that, although the dual-class structure is associated with less informative stock prices, on average, monitoring and disclosure can alleviate investor concerns about disproportionate insider control while allowing firms to take advantage of the benefits of a dual-class ownership structure.

Using 18,253 firm-year observations from 1998 through 2003, we build on literature suggesting that more informative disclosures allow returns to better reflect future earnings and test whether management earnings per share forecasts and their characteristics influence the future earnings response coefficient (FERC). We find that FERCs are greater for forecasting firms and when forecasts are more frequent or precise. We suggest that more frequent and more precise forecasts assist investors in better predicting future earnings. Importantly, we find that quarterly and short-term forecasts incrementally increase the association between returns and future earnings beyond annual and long-term forecasts; thus, even short-term, quarterly forecasts allow investors to form better expectations about future earnings. This suggests a benefit of quarterly earnings forecasts possibly overlooked in recommendations from the United States Chamber of Commerce, CFA Institute, Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, and The Conference Board to eliminate quarterly earnings guidance.

Customer referencing is a strategy that firms can use to disclose their connections with reputable customers as a means of enhancing their own reputations. We study the capital market benefits of naming reputable nonmajor customers in firms' financial reports to provide empirical evidence on whether this form of customer referencing has important practical implications. We predict and find that firms enjoy a lower cost of equity when they engage in customer referencing in their financial reports, consistent with the argument that this form of voluntary disclosure increases investor attention and customer certification. In cross‐sectional analyses, we predict and find that the benefits of customer referencing are more pronounced for firms that (1) lack major customers or reputable major customers, (2) name customers whose reputations exceed their own, and (3) face higher competition. Overall, our study provides evidence that communicating certain interorganizational connections can generate capital market benefits for disclosing firms.

We provide evidence that some managers use a multi‐period, coordinated strategy involving inflated current‐period discretionary accruals and optimistic forecasts of future earnings to delay the revelation of bad news. Inflating discretionary accruals increases investor expectations of future performance, and issuing optimistic earnings forecasts of future earnings supports the inflated accruals and extends the horizon for managers to benefit. This strategy is more pronounced for firms that engage in earnings management outside of GAAP, suggesting intentional behavior. Our evidence indicates that managers use this coordinated strategy when firms experience significant bad news and cannot delay revealing all of the bad news through accrual management. We also find that managers use this coordinated strategy when focusing on short‐term performance due to career concerns (i.e., dismissal) or retirement or when they have shorter stock option vesting schedules, which motivates them to inflate investor expectations for shorter‐term personal benefits. Furthermore, managers using this strategy do not hold deep in the money exercisable stock options, which is consistent with managers' private assessment of a higher (lower) likelihood of releasing bad (good) news in the future.

Although the FASB and IASB conceptual frameworks identify relevance and faithful representation as the fundamental qualitative characteristics of useful information, prior research suggests that revenue recognition accounting standards that restrict managerial discretion resulted in improved faithful representation but reduced relevance. We use the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2009‐13 and ASU 2009‐14 to examine the effects of increased managerial discretion to accelerate revenue recognition in multiple‐deliverable arrangements; that is, transactions where vendors sell multiple products or services that are delivered at different points in time. We find that increased discretion results in an increase in the relevance of reported revenues without reducing faithful representation. We further examine whether managers' strategic motivations influence the transparency of ASU 2009‐13 and ASU 2009‐14 adoption disclosure. Although firms providing opaque adoption disclosure do not exhibit a decline in the faithful representation of revenues following the standards' adoption, these firms are more likely than firms providing transparent adoption disclosure to accelerate revenue recognition opportunistically following adoption when incentives are high. These results provide important evidence for assessing whether standards that allow greater discretion in revenue recognition affect the usefulness of revenues and also provide evidence that strategic motivations to preserve flexibility in managing earnings influence the transparency of adoption disclosure.

In this study, we examine whether audit committee accounting expertise helps to promote audit quality by motivating auditors to conduct diligent internal control audits and make appropriate internal control assessments because audit committee accounting expertise safeguards auditors from dismissal following adverse internal control opinions. Among clients with existing and likely internal control material weaknesses (as proxied by future restatements of audited financial statements), we find a greater likelihood of adverse internal control audit opinions when the audit committee has greater accounting expertise (measured by the proportion of accounting experts on the audit committee). Among all clients, we find a lower likelihood of subsequent auditor dismissal following an adverse internal control audit opinion when the audit committee has greater accounting expertise. In further analyses, we find that this lower likelihood of subsequent auditor dismissal occurs when at least two audit committee members possess accounting expertise. We also find some evidence that CFO influence (but not CEO influence) over the audit committee negates the increased likelihood of adverse internal control opinions when internal control material weaknesses likely exist, as well as the decreased likelihood of auditor dismissal following adverse internal control opinions. These findings have important implications for regulators and corporate nominating committees interested in promoting audit committee effectiveness.

In this study, we investigate the consequences that auditors and their clients face when earnings announced in an unaudited earnings release are subsequently revised, presumably as a result of year‐end audit procedures, so that earnings as reported in the 10‐K differ from earnings as previously announced. Specifically, we examine whether the likelihood of an auditor “losing the client” is greater following such revisions, and whether the likelihood of dismissal is influenced by revisions that more negatively impact earnings, that cause the client to miss important earnings benchmarks, by greater local auditor competition, or by auditor characteristics. We also examine audit pricing subsequent to audit‐related earnings revisions for evidence of pricing concessions to retain the client. Finally, we examine whether client executives experience a greater likelihood of turnover following an audit‐related earnings revision. Consistent with expectations, we find that auditor dismissals are more likely following audit‐related earnings revisions. We also find that dismissals are more likely when revisions cause clients to miss important benchmarks and when there is greater local auditor competition. Among nondismissing clients, we find that future audit fees are lower when the effect of the revision on earnings is more negative, consistent with auditors offering price concessions to retain clients when revisions are more displeasing. We also find a greater likelihood of future chief financial officer ( CFO ) turnover as the effect of the revision worsens. Our findings offer important insights into the consequences that auditors face when balancing their responsibility for high audit quality and client satisfaction, as well as into the consequences that CFO s face when releasing inflated but not fully audited earnings.