Knowledge that Transforms

I investigate whether fair value accounting can contribute to the banking industry's systemic risk. I focus on the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 115 (SFAS No. 115), which required available‐for‐sale (AFS) securities to be recognized at fair value with unrealized gains and losses included in equity through accumulated other comprehensive income. SFAS No. 115 increased banks' regulatory risk because, at the time, calculation of regulatory capital closely conformed with GAAP equity. I find that systemic risk increased following the adoption of SFAS No. 115. Furthermore, following a subsequent regulatory amendment—which excluded unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities from regulatory capital but did not change their GAAP treatment—systemic risk decreased. Taken together, the evidence suggests that fair value accounting has the potential to increase systemic risk through the explicit inclusion of volatile fair value estimates in regulatory bank capital adequacy assessments. I do not, however, find evidence of fair value accounting impacting systemic risk in its information role; that is, by providing information to a bank's external stakeholders about its financial position and performance. I also show that higher fair value volatility of investment securities, lower bank capital, and larger AFS security holdings increase banks' marginal contribution to systemic risk. My findings should interest regulators and policymakers, as recent regulatory changes in light of Basel III recommendations require unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities to be included in regulatory capital for advanced approaches banks.

The complexity of value‐based management (VBM) is often not captured in empirical research. In particular, potential differences in the extent of VBM implementation are not considered. Firms are predominantly classified dichotomously into either VBM “adopters” or “non‐adopters.” In this study, we aim to fill this gap by introducing a framework to assess differences in the extent of VBM implementation (VBM‐sophistication) based on publicly available data. This approach enables us to study determinants of VBM‐sophistication based on a hand‐collected data set comprising 2,683 firm‐year observations from 16 European countries between 2005 and 2014. Specifically, we investigate (i) whether potential economic benefits associated with VBM implementation lead to a higher level of VBM‐sophistication, and (ii) if this relation is influenced by extra‐organizational institutions (e.g., industry norms). Our results indicate that companies exhibit higher VBM‐sophistication if certain firm characteristics that increase the potential economic benefits of VBM are present. Moreover, our study provides evidence that this effect is enhanced by extra‐organizational institutions that pressure and support firms in realizing the potential benefits of higher VBM‐sophistication.

While substantial revisions to auditor reporting requirements are being implemented internationally, the impact of these reforms on financial reporting quality is unknown. We exploit the United Kingdom's recent auditor reporting changes and find that the United Kingdom's new reporting regime is associated with an improvement in financial reporting quality as proxied by significant decreases in absolute abnormal accruals and the propensity to just meet or beat analyst forecasts, and a significant increase in earnings response coefficients. As for audit costs, we do not find a significant change in audit fees or audit delay surrounding the implementation of the new reporting regime. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that new auditor reporting requirements are associated with a significant improvement in financial reporting quality without detecting a significant increase in audit costs.

Regulation requires auditors to raise significant audit issues and concerns to the attention of audit engagement leadership and requires leadership to encourage such communication. This research demonstrates, using an experiment and a survey, that audit team members' willingness to speak up about such issues is associated with their intrinsic motivational orientation. Based on this result, we test whether audit leadership can leverage this relationship to increase speaking up, particularly when audit issues are more ambiguous, by emphasizing intrinsic goals. Results across three additional experiments indicate that auditors whose leaders emphasize intrinsic goals, whether directly or through tone at the top and firm culture, are more likely to speak up than are other auditors. We also find that auditors are more likely to speak up when an audit issue is less versus more ambiguous. We conclude that leadership can fulfill their obligation to encourage upward communication by emphasizing intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, regardless of the level of ambiguity surrounding the audit issue.

Subchapter C of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code levies an entity‐level tax on corporate profits, whereas Subchapter S allows corporations meeting specific criteria to elect out of this tax. Despite these differences, C and S corporations regularly compete for customers and capital. We examine whether and the extent to which competition from S corporations influences the future organizational form choice of rival C corporations and explore outcomes of this choice. Using data for 4,462 private U.S. commercial banks grouped by Metropolitan Statistical Area during 1997–2010, we find that greater competition from S corporation banks increases the likelihood that rival C corporation banks convert to Subchapter S status. We estimate that the aggregate first‐year tax savings from S conversion exceed $372 million. Consistent with these savings being used to maintain competitive parity with rivals, we find that converting banks increase their interest rates on customer deposits and advertising intensity. Our findings provide insight into whether competition from tax‐advantaged firms influences the organizational form choice of rival tax‐disadvantaged firms.

We examine a principal–agent setting in which the principal uses a performance measurement system for multiple purposes—to provide incentives and for retention decisions. The principal chooses the nature and extent of bias in the system, which determines whether the performance report is stringent, neutral, or lenient relative to the unobservable actual outcome. We show that when the report is used only for incentive purposes (an incentive role), stringency alleviates moral hazard. On the other hand, when the principal's objective is to minimize the cost from incorrect retention and firing decisions (a fit evaluation role), there is a demand for leniency. Surprisingly, however, we show that adding a fit evaluation role to a system serving an incentive role can accentuate the demand for stringency because stronger incentives can also indirectly improve retention decisions.

Evidence suggests that society still does not view whistleblowers as wholly legitimate—despite legal protections now offered in some jurisdictions, such as the United States. Drawing on a discourse analysis (i.e., an examination of statements), we investigate the well‐publicized stories of seven whistleblowers from 69 sources, including books, first‐ and second‐hand interviews, websites, and videos. Our focus is to examine how whistleblower discourses can build legitimacy by more tightly defining the whistleblower role and demonstrating its alignment with social norms. Using whistleblower self‐narratives, we identify four narrative patterns: (i) Trigger(s)—the event(s) leading to whistleblowing; (ii) Personality traits—whistleblower's morality, resourcefulness, and determination; (iii) Constraints—barriers requiring regulatory and organizational change; and (iv) Consequences—the longer term positive impact of the whistleblowing act. These patterns rely on symbolic, analogical, and metaphorical framing to allow others to better understand the role of whistleblowers and enlist their support. Exploring a data set of 1,621 press articles, we find indications that these narrative patterns resonate in the media—which provide a form of support and may be instrumental in legitimizing the whistleblower role. Grounded on these results, we develop a legitimacy construction model of the whistleblower role, that is, a representation of how role legitimacy is produced and sustained. From this model, we identify a number of important areas for future research.

We examine professional directors—board members with no employment outside of serving as independent directors. We find that boards with a higher percentage of professional directors engage in more acquisitions, experience lower acquisition announcement returns, and exhibit lower performance‐turnover sensitivity and lower financial performance. We also examine the returns surrounding the appointment‐announcement dates of professional directors and find that firms experience significantly lower cumulative abnormal returns upon the appointment announcement of professional directors as compared to nonprofessional directors. The negative returns are primarily experienced by firms that face greater agency issues, suggesting that the market does not value professional directors for stricter monitoring. Overall, our findings do not lend support for calls to professionalize corporate boards.

This research examines how investment experience and financial literacy impact investment‐related judgments. Financial literacy refers to a person's knowledge of fundamental financial concepts. I begin by documenting investors' demographic characteristics and financial literacy using a relatively large sample of participants ( n > 2,000) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk under different categories of investment experience, which I benchmark against national samples of financial capability skills in the United States. I then replicate a sample of three accounting research experiments, varying the type and depth of the underlying accounting issue. Across the three experiments, the data show two main results: First, investment experience strengthens the influence of financial accounting disclosures on participants' investment‐related judgments. Second, financial literacy further strengthens the influence of financial accounting disclosures on investors' (but not noninvestors') judgments. Collectively, these findings suggest that investment experience and financial literacy can help to identify individuals who are more likely to be able and willing to study financial reporting information with reasonable diligence as they form their investment‐related judgments.

Disclosure standards mandate the quantitative disclosure of hedging‐instrument‐related risks but not the disclosure of hedged‐item‐related risks. We examine how a match (mismatch) in formats, caused by making quantitative (qualitative) hedged item disclosures alongside quantitative hedging instrument disclosures, affects investors' integration of information from these two related disclosures. Our first experiment varies the hedged item disclosure format (quantitative or qualitative) and the portion of risk hedged (small or large). We find that when disclosure formats are mismatched, the less comparable nature of the two disclosures caused investors to neglect the offsetting relationship when assessing net risks. As a result, risk and investment judgments were influenced by the more prominent quantitative hedging instrument disclosures. Our second experiment finds that the use of a qualitative debiaser that clarifies the relationship between the two disclosures led to the integration of information and mitigated this effect.