This paper examines the price effect of institutional stock trading, using a unique data set that reports the transactions (large and small) of 37 large institutional money management firms. The direction of each trade and the identity of the management firm behind each trade are known. Although institutional trades are associated with some price pressure, we find that the average effect is small. There is also a marked asymmetry between the price impact of buys versus sells. We relate our findings to various hypotheses on the elasticity of demand for stocks, the cost of executing transactions, and the determinants of market impact. Although market capitalization and relative trade size influence the market impact of a trade, the dominant influence is the identity of the money manager behind the trade.

John C. Beghin, C. A. Knox Lovell, Trade and Efficiency Effects of Domestic Content Protection: The Australian Tobacco and Cigarette Industries, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Nov., 1993), pp. 623-631

[Positive theory hypothesizes that accounting-based debt covenants are important factors in accounting choices. According to Watts and Zimmerman's (1990) survey, this hypothesis has generally been supported by earlier studies. That is, the closer the firm is to violating accounting covenants, the more likely managers would choose income-increasing methods. Recently, research attention has shifted to the event of covenant violation itself. For example, Beneish and Press (1993) estimate debtors' costs of violations. Further, DeFond and Jiambalvo (1991) and Sweeney (1992) examine debtors' manipulative behavior before covenant violations. These latter studies find that violations of accounting covenants are costly to debtors, who generally try to manipulate accounting numbers to avoid or defer technical defaults. The present study also focuses on the event of violation, but from the perspective of creditors. It explains two aspects of creditors' decision process following covenant violations. First, we find that creditors react to actual violations in two distinct ways: they could either waive the violations or could demand certain conditions such as early payment, increase of interest rate, reduction of borrowing base, and so forth. Second, we also model creditors' decisions either to waive or to call the debt using the option-pricing framework. We hypothesize that the determinants of waiver decisions include the firm's bankruptcy probability and leverage ratio. Moreover, maturity, size, and security of the debt issue involved should also be important factors in the waiver decisions. Empirically, we find that creditors are more likely to grant a waiver to the firm with a lower estimated probability of bankruptcy and a lower leverage ratio. Further, debt issues that are secured or smaller in size are more likely to have violations waived than unsecured or larger issues. The maturity variable, however, is not found a significant determinant of the waiver decisions. Using the factors identified in this study, managers can assess the probability of receiving a waiver and prepare necessary strategies to ensure the firm's survival. Auditors also can use those factors to assess the possibility of the client's receiving a waiver of covenant violation as part of their evaluation of the firm's ability to continue as a going concern. Moreover, since debtors prefer waivers to nonwaivers, the prospect of receiving a waiver is likely to influence managerial behavior, including the choice of accounting alternatives. Managers expecting a nonwaiver from creditors would have more incentive to select accounting methods to avoid covenant violations.]

Eric C. Chang, J. Michael Pinegar, R. Ravichandran, International Evidence on the Robustness of the Day-of-the-Week Effect, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 497-513

Abstract One of the most common decisions facing an internal auditor is choosing which line items to investigate. An extensive literature (Dworin and Grimlund 1984; Leslie et al. 1980; Menz& fricke 1984; Teitlebaum and Robinson 1975) deals with the statistical and decision-theoretic aspects of his choice. This paper expands on previous work by adding a strategic source of errors: dishonest employees. It addresses the question of how the presence of strategic errors affects the relationship between the auditor's testing strategy and item value. I show that incorporating strategic errors can lead to audit strategies similar to Physical Units and Dollar Units Sampling. I highlight the assumptions driving the results by contrasting a firm's (or internal auditor's) use of an optional test in four stylized models of accounts receivable. The first model examines the firm's behavior when faced with nonstrategic (statistical) billing errors. In this model the accounting system generates random errors that result in over- or underbilling customers. The firm can use a costly, imperfect test to remove errors before the bills are sent out. In this nonstrategic model the firm randomizes and tests an item if and only if the benefit is greater than the cost. Because the amount of billing error is unrelated to the item value, there is no clear link between the firm's testing decision and the value of the line item. The second billing model adds the possible existence of dishonest employees who can steal from line items. A dishonest employee makes two decisions. He decides whether to steal from the line item, and, if he steals, he chooses the amount of the theft. A dishonest employee would steal the entire item if he were certain that the firm would never test that item. The dishonest employee's behavior forces the firm to consider the value of the item in determining the region of untested items. Specifically, low value items are never tested. As in many strategic models, the interaction with dishonest employees may lead to randomization. In particular, the randomized testing strategy can look like Stratified Physical Units Attributes Sampling (Leslie et alt 1980). The firm sorts items into different groups and each item in a group has the same probability of being tested. The third model contains only the statistical errors of incorrectly adding or deleting a sales discount, a percentage of the item value. Since the testing gain is directly related to the value of the line item, the firm's strategy depends on an item's value. The firm always tests high value items, and never tests low value items. The fourth model adds potentially dishonest employees who can pros vide unearned sales discounts to their confederates. In this model the firm stratifies items into three groups. It never investigates small items, always investigates large items, and randomizes over intermediate value items with probabilities roughly proportionate to the value of the item. This procedure is similar to a common audit procedure, Dollar Unit Cell Width Sampling (Leslie et al. 1980).

[The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relies increasingly on its ability to detect taxpayer noncompliance without engaging in a comprehensive individual audit. The IRS's compliance initiative, Compliance 2000, emphasizes the targeting of noncompliant taxpayers rather than relying on random audits to enforce the tax laws. For example, the IRS uses a model developed from the Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) to help it choose which returns to audit. The treatment of losses from tax shelter partnerships presents a difficult compliance problem for the IRS. It is not evident from the face of either the partnership return or the partner's return whether the losses from the partnership can be legitimately deducted. A plausible audit strategy is for the IRS to develop models that can predict when an individual is improperly deducting a loss. The tax shelter disclosure rules in I.R.C. section 6111 and section 6112 provide information to the IRS that helps it detect taxpayers investing in abusive tax shelters. Previous work has modeled tax compliance as a game between a wealth-maximizing taxpayer and a tax enforcement agency trying to maximize government revenues, net of audit costs (Graetz et al. 1986; Reinganum and Wilde 1986; Beck and Jung 1989). In these papers, the IRS uses the taxpayer's declaration of income when it decides whether to audit that taxpayer. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of information that helps the IRS predict tax evasion on the strategic choices made by the taxpayer and the IRS. The information has a direct effect by giving the IRS information that can improve its audit decision. It also has an indirect effect by changing the taxpayer's incentives to engage in tax evasion, which in turn changes the IRS's incentives to audit taxpayers. The optimal level of information acquisition is also examined. The analysis yields four important results regarding the effect of information on tax compliance. First, it can induce an increase in tax evasion. Second, it has no effect on the expected level of gross government revenues. Third, it can increase expected audit costs. Fourth, the optimal level of investment in information acquisition does not vary monotonically with tax rates, penalty rates, audit costs, or the amount of loss deducted by the taxpayer.]

[One of the most common decisions facing an internal auditor is choosing which line items to investigate. An extensive literature (Dworin and Grimlund 1984; Leslie et al. 1980; Menzefricke 1984; Teitlebaum and Robinson 1975) deals with the statistical and decision-theoretic aspects of his choice. This paper expands on previous work by adding a strategic source of errors: dishonest employees. It addresses the question of how the presence of strategic errors affects the relationship between the auditor's testing strategy and item value. I show that incorporating strategic errors can lead to audit strategies similar to Physical Units and Dollar Units Sampling. I highlight the assumptions driving the results by contrasting a firm's (or internal auditor's) use of an optional test in four stylized models of accounts receivable. The first model examines the firm's behavior when faced with non-strategic (statistical) billing errors. In this model the accounting system generates random errors that result in over- or underbilling customers. The firm can use a costly, imperfect test to remove errors before the bills are sent out. In this nonstrategic model the firm randomizes and tests an item if and only if the benefit is greater than the cost. Because the amount of billing error is unrelated to the item value, there is no clear link between the firm's testing decision and the value of the line item. The second billing model adds the possible existence of dishonest employees who can steal from line items. A dishonest employee makes two decisions. He decides whether to steal from the line item, and, if he steals, he chooses the amount of the theft. A dishonest employee would steal the entire item if he were certain that the firm would never test that item. The dishonest employee's behavior forces the firm to consider the value of the item in determining the region of untested items. Specifically, low value items are never tested. As in many strategic models, the interaction with dishonest employees may lead to randomization. In particular, the randomized testing strategy can look like Stratified Physical Units Attributes Sampling (Leslie et al. 1980). The firm sorts items into different groups and each item in a group has the same probability of being tested. The third model contains only the statistical errors of incorrectly adding or deleting a sales discount, a percentage of the item value. Since the testing gain is directly related to the value of the line item, the firm's strategy depends on an item's value. The firm always tests high value items, and never tests low value items. The fourth model adds potentially dishonest employees who can provide unearned sales discounts to their confederates. In this model the firm stratifies items into three groups. It never investigates small items, always investigates large items, and randomizes over intermediate value items with probabilities roughly proportionate to the value of the item. This procedure is similar to a common audit procedure, Dollar Unit Cell Width Sampling (Leslie et al. 1980).]

Abstract. A major function of financial statement analysis is to assess the risk of financial distress. Since Beaver's (1966) and Altaian's (1968) pioneering works, voluminous studies have been devoted to exploring the use of accounting information in predicting business failure. We apply survival analysis to study a class of financial distress when a financial analyst can identify an event that sets off the dynamic process of business adversity and would like to find out how long a firm can endure the adversity. We use the case of the oil and gas industry during the turmoil of the early 1980s and apply survival analysis to study how long a firm can endure this drastic oil price decline before facing financial distress. Our results indicate that the liquidity ratio, leverage ratio, operating cash flows, success in exploration, age, and size are significant factors affecting corporate endurance. Résumé. Une fonction majeure de l'analyse des états financiers consiste à évaluer le risque de difficultés financières. Depuis les travaux d'amorce de Beaver et Altman, de volumineuses études ont été consacrées à l'analyse approfondie de l'utilisation de l'information comptable dans la prédiction des faillites d'entreprises. Les auteurs appliquent l'analyse de survie à l'étude d'une catégorie de difficultés financières pour laquelle l'analyste financier parvient à déterminer un événement qui déclenche le processus dynamique des difficultés de l'entreprise et aimerait déterminer pendant combien de temps cette dernière pourra résister à ces difficultés. Les auteurs évoquent le cas du secteur pétrolier et gazier au cours de la période tumultueuse du début des années 80 et appliquent l'analyse de survie à l'étude du temps pendant lequel une entreprise pouvait résister à un déclin radical du prix du pétrole avant d'éprouver des difficultés financières. Les résultats de l'étude démontrent que le ratio de liquidité, le ratio de levier, les flux monétaires provenant de l'exploitation, le succès des activités d'exploration, l'âge et la taille de l'entreprise sont des facteurs importants qui influent sur sa résistance.

The authors are grateful to Avner Ben-Ner, Jacques Defourny, Saul Estrin, Felix FitzRoy, Barbara Lee, Bentley MacLeod, Egon Neuberger, Jeffrey Pliskin, Stephen C. Smith, and three anonymous referees for comments on various drafts of this paper. Jones acknowledges with gratitude thefinancial assistance of the National Science Foundation (Grant # 9010591). Of course, all remaining errors and any omissions are entirely the responsibility of the authors.