Prior research indicates that analysts do not fully adjust for the general downward bias in earnings guidance issued by management. We report the results of two experiments designed to investigate how guidance track record and analysts incentives jointly explain the extent to which analysts adjust for guidance bias. Our results suggest that analysts with accuracy incentives adjust for managements track record of downwardly biased guidance when the bias is relatively small (one cent), but those with relationship incentives do not. Furthermore, the difference in adjustment is larger when the bias track record is inconsistent than when it is consistent. Also, when guidance bias is larger (two cents) relative to smaller (one cent), analysts with relationship incentives partially adjust, as they appear to strike a balance between accuracy and their desire to please management. These findings hold implications for investors, regulators, and the interpretation of prior research.

Prior research indicates that analysts do not fully adjust for the general downward bias in earnings guidance issued by management. We report the results of two experiments designed to investigate how guidance track record and analysts’ incentives jointly explain the extent to which analysts adjust for guidance bias. Our results suggest that analysts with accuracy incentives adjust for management’s track record of downwardly biased guidance when the bias is relatively small (one cent), but those with relationship incentives do not. Furthermore, the difference in adjustment is larger when the bias track record is inconsistent than when it is consistent. Also, when guidance bias is larger (two cents) relative to smaller (one cent), analysts with relationship incentives partially adjust, as they appear to strike a balance between accuracy and their desire to please management. These findings hold implications for investors, regulators, and the interpretation of prior research.

Les études précédentes indiquent que les analystes n’ajustent pas totalement leurs évaluations en fonction du biais général à la baisse des annonces de résultats prévisionnels faites par les directions d’entreprises. Les auteurs rapportent les résultats de deux expériences visant à déterminer comment la feuille de route des entreprises en ce qui a trait à la publication de résultats prévisionnels et les enjeux motivant les analystes expliquent de concert la mesure dans laquelle ces derniers ajustent leurs évaluations en fonction du biais des annonces de résultats prévisionnels. Ces résultats d’expérience semblent indiquer que les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de l’exactitude ajustent leurs évaluations selon la feuille de route de la direction en ce qui a trait à la publication de résultats prévisionnels biaisés à la baisse lorsque le biais est relativement modeste (un cent), mais que les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de leur relation avec la direction s’en abstiennent. Au surplus, la différence dans l’ajustement est plus importante lorsque la feuille de route de l’entreprise en matière de biais est irrégulière que lorsqu’elle est régulière. Aussi, lorsque le biais des annonces de résultats prévisionnels est plus important que moins (deux cents par rapport à un cent), les analystes pour qui l’enjeu est celui de la relation avec la direction procèdent à un ajustement partiel, paraissant ainsi rechercher un équilibre entre exactitude et volonté de plaire à la direction. Ces constatations ont des répercussions pour les investisseurs, les autorités de réglementation et l’interprétation des études précédentes.

Prior research indicates that greater transparency in reporting formats facilitates the detection of earnings management. The current study hypothesizes and demonstrates that greater transparency in comprehensive income reporting also reduces the likelihood that managers will engage in earnings management in the area of increased transparency. In our experiment, 62 financial executives and chief executive officers decide which available-for-sale security to sell from a portfolio. We manipulate the transparency of comprehensive income reporting and the relationship of projected earnings to the consensus forecast in a 2×2 between-subjects design. When projected earnings are below (above) the consensus forecast, participants sell securities that increase (decrease) earnings. However, the rarely used, more transparent format for reporting comprehensive income significantly reduces both income-increasing and income-decreasing earnings management. Participants in the less transparent setting indicate that earnings management attempts will not be obvious to readers, will improve stock prices, and have no effect on management's reputation for reporting integrity. Conversely, respondents in the more transparent condition suggest that earnings management will be obvious to readers, harmful to stock prices, and damaging to reporting reputation. Results of this study suggest that more transparent reporting requirements will reduce earnings management in the area of increased transparency or change the focus of earnings management to less visible methods.

Preannouncements of earnings tend to overstate negative or understate positive news, which decreases the chance of a negative surprise when actual earnings is announced. We conduct an experiment to investigate how experienced sell‐side analysts’ earnings forecasts are affected by preannouncements that either understate, accurately state, or overstate the magnitude of positive or negative total earnings news, holding total earnings news constant. We find that firms with negative (positive) total news receive the highest post‐earnings announcement forecasts of future earnings when the earlier preannouncement overstates (understates) the magnitude of the news. These forecasts are consistent with the analysts’ perceptions about the firms’ future prospects, but not their perceptions of management. While analysts expect preannouncements to be lower than actual earnings, they do not adjust their forecasts for these beliefs. These insights into analysts’ responses have implications both for managers and analysts.

We examine whether information in footnotes might lack reliability because auditors permit more misstatement in disclosed, as opposed to recognized, amounts. In both the stock-compensation and lease settings, audit partners require greater correction of misstatements in recognized amounts than in the equivalent disclosed amounts. Debriefing questions indicate that the partners make these decisions knowingly, even though they expect greater client resistance to correcting recognized amounts, because they view recognized amounts as more material. Partners also spend more time on correction decisions for recognized information. While prior literature suggests that amounts are often relegated to footnotes because they are less reliable, our results suggest that the actual choice to disclose versus recognize can also reduce information reliability. These results have implications for the interpretation of prior research on the reliability of recognized and disclosed numbers, for financial-accounting standard setters who may want to consider the reliability effects of their recognition versus disclosure decisions, and for auditing standard setters who may wish to clarify auditors' responsibilities for preventing misstatements in disclosed amounts.

This study examines how the form of management's earnings guidance (point, narrow range, wide range) affects analysts' earnings forecasts. Results from two experiments demonstrate that: (1) guidance form has no effect on analysts' forecasts made immediately after the guidance; and (2) after the actual earnings announcement, guidance form and the relationship of the earnings guidance to actual earnings (guidance error) interact in their effect on analysts' forecasts. After the actual earnings announcement, guidance error leads to higher (lower) analysts' forecasts for firms with downwardly (upwardly) biased guidance; this effect of guidance error is magnified by a narrow range and reduced by a wide range, compared to a point estimate. These results suggest that treating the mean of the range endpoints as equivalent to a point estimate and failing to consider effects after the release of actual earnings may paint an incomplete picture of how management guidance affects analysts and investors. It also offers useful information to managers who issue earnings guidance, and presents a challenge to the psychology literature regarding the effects of information precision on judgment and decision making.

ABSTRACT We examine whether analysts' incentives to maintain good relationships with management contribute to the optimistic/pessimistic within‐period time trend in analysts' forecasts. In our experiments, 81 experienced sell‐side analysts from two brokerage firms predict earnings based on historical information and management guidance. Analysts' forecasts exhibit an optimistic/pessimistic pattern across the two timing conditions (early and late in the quarter), and the effect is significantly stronger when the analysts have a good relationship with management than when their only incentive is to be accurate. Debriefing results indicate that analysts are aware of this pattern of forecasts, and believe that this benefits their future relationships with management and with brokerage clients. The analysts most frequently cite favored conference call participation and information access when describing benefits from maintaining good relationships with management. Our results suggest the following: The optimistic/pessimistic pattern in forecasts is in part a conscious response to relationship incentives, information access is perceived to be a major benefit of management relationships, and recent regulatory changes may have lessened but have not eliminated this conflict of interest source.

ABSTRACT: The trend toward continuous monitoring of automated business transactions by the internal audit function is growing as organizations seek to improve internal control. In this study, we demonstrate that continuous monitoring and the time horizon over which performance-contingent incentives are based can interact, thereby yielding potential functional and dysfunctional effects on managerial decisions. Seventy-two experienced corporate managers completed a between-participants experiment that randomized monitoring frequency (periodic or continuous) and incentive horizon (short-term or long-term). We found that earnings management of real activities significantly decreased as the frequency of monitoring increased in the presence of a short-term incentive horizon—a functional effect. However, with a long-term incentive horizon, the participants’ willingness to change the current level of investment in a risky but viable project significantly dropped as the frequency of monitoring increased, even though additional investment would enhance the likelihood of the project’s eventual success—a dysfunctional effect. We also observed that more frequent monitoring significantly decreased the willingness of managers to continue with a risky but viable project regardless of incentive horizon and the effect was significantly pronounced in the presence of a short-term, relative to long-term, incentive horizon—another dysfunctional consequence. Implications of the research findings to theory and practice are discussed.