We study a model of financial reporting where investors infer the precision of reported earnings. Reporting a larger earnings surprise reduces the inferred earnings precision, dampening the impact on firm value of reporting higher earnings, and providing a natural demand for smoother earnings. We show that for sufficiently “bad” news, the manager under‐reports earnings by the maximum, preferring to take a “big bath” in the current period in order to report higher future earnings. If the news is “good,” the manager smoothes earnings, with the amount of smoothing depending on the level of cashflows observed. He either over‐reports or partially under‐reports for slightly good news, and gradually increases his under‐reporting as the news gets better, until he is under‐reporting the maximum amount for sufficiently good news. This result holds both when investors are “naïve” and ignore management’s ability to manipulate earnings, or “sophisticated” and correctly infer management’s disclosure strategy.

To restore investors’ confidence in the reliability of corporate financial disclosures, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 mandated stricter regulations and arguably increased auditors’ liability. In this paper, we analyze the effects of increased auditor liability on the audit failure rate, the cost of capital, and the level of new investment. We focus on a setting in which, with imperfect auditing, a firm has better information than investors about its prospects and seeks to raise capital for new investments in a lemons market. The equilibrium analysis derives corporate reporting and investing choices by the firm, attestation opinions by the auditor, and valuation by rational investors. Three empirically testable predictions emerge: although increasing auditor liability decreases the audit failure rate and the cost of capital for new projects, it also decreases the level of new profitable investments.