ABSTRACT: Recent years have seen an increased emphasis on developing more precise accounting measures of market- and customer-level profitability. By their very nature, such segment profitability measures may unwittingly neglect complementarities. Such complementarities have been widely recognized on the demand side due to brand recognition, predatory pricing, or interdependent products. We develop a model showing that important supply-side complementarities can also be prevalent. In particular, when a firm relies on a self-interested supplier for inputs used across multiple segments, the wholesale price it pays depends on the average profitability of its segments. Taking such interaction between upstream pricing and the firm’s downstream reach into account, the model shows that: (1) segment profit calculations can understate or overstate the value added by the segment depending on the segment’s relative contribution margin, and (2) the firm sometimes benefits from devoting resources to less profitable segments and perhaps even from serving seemingly unprofitable markets and/or customers.

This paper examines the impact of distortions wrought by transfer pricing when a firm is engaged in both internal production and external procurement of inputs. In particular, we demonstrate that a firm can actually glean benefits from often-discussed transfer-pricing problems in dealing with an external supplier. Though transfer prices above marginal cost introduce inter-division coordination problems, they also introduce a lower willingness to pay to outside suppliers. Knowing that costly internal transfers will eat into demand, the supplier is more willing to set lower prices. Such supplier discounts can make decentralization worthwhile for the firm. This benefit of decentralization is shown to be robust to variations in both downstream and upstream competition.

Analysts and the managers of firms they track have both come under fire in recent years. In particular, managers are accused of using earnings guidance to exert undue influence on analyst forecasts. This paper analyzes optimal incentive contracts that take into account the interaction between analysts and firm managers. In our setting, biased earnings guidance is a natural consequence of contract design. The bias serves to create enough uncertainty so as to motivate the analyst and, thus, may not necessarily be the scourge suggested by conventional wisdom.

Financial statements summarize a firm's fiscal position using only a limited number of accounts. Readers often interpret financial statements in conjunction with other information, some of which may be aggregated in a different way (or not at all). This paper exploits properties of the double‐entry accounting system to provide a systematic approach to reconciling diverse financial data. The key is the ability to represent the double‐entry system by network flows and, thereby, access well‐recognized network optimization techniques. Two specific uses are investigated: the reconciliation of audit evidence with management‐prepared financial statements, and the creation of transaction‐level financial ratios.

ABSTRACT Firms’ reluctance at times to publicly disclose financial information is often attributed to concern that the information may be used against them by self‐interested outside parties. These outside parties may interact with the firm in the horizontal realm (e.g., retail competitors) or in the vertical arena (e.g., wholesale suppliers). This article is built on the premise that fully understanding the strategic consequences of disclosure requires joint consideration of horizontal and vertical relationships. When both rivals and suppliers are accounted for, we demonstrate that (i) lower intra‐industry correlation in product demand favors disclosure, with the precise correlation‐cutoff dependent on the firm's use of input suppliers; and (ii) the more a firm relies on input suppliers with pricing power, the less attractive is disclosure.

This paper extends a familiar model of competition and disclosure to incorporate the practical feature that firms may not only hold private information about consumer demand, but they can also influence demand by the investments they make in improving product quality. Such investments can reflect installing new product features, improving durability, adding design enhancements, and the like. This paper demonstrates that investments stand to significantly influence the firm's preference for disclosures and, in fact, become a determining feature of disclosure choice. In particular, under Cournot competition, a firm prefers disclosure when the industry‐wide effects of information and investments are concordant. That is, if both product quality and demand information have large positive industry spillovers, disclosure is desirable because it promotes implicit cooperation in investments; if both have low spillover, disclosure permits a firm to convey strength to a rival and then use quantity and quality in concert to dominate the market precisely when the firm's demand is at its peak.