Knowledge that Transforms

We study a class of models of moral hazard in which a principal contracts with a counterparty, which may have its own internal organizational structure. The principal has non‐Bayesian uncertainty as to what actions might be taken in response to the contract, and wishes to maximize her worst‐case payoff. We identify conditions on the counterparty's possible responses to any given contract that imply that a linear contract solves this maxmin problem. In conjunction with a Richness property motivated by much previous literature, we identify a Responsiveness property that is sufficient—and, in an appropriate sense, also necessary—to ensure that linear contracts are optimal. We illustrate by contrasting several possible models of contracting in hierarchies. The analysis demonstrates how one can distill key features of contracting models that allow their findings to be carried beyond the bilateral setting.

We study a fiscal policy model in which the government is present‐biased towards public spending. Society chooses a fiscal rule to trade off the benefit of committing the government to not overspend against the benefit of granting it flexibility to react to privately observed shocks to the value of spending. Unlike prior work, we examine rules under limited enforcement: the government has full policy discretion and can only be incentivized to comply with a rule via the use of penalties which are joint and bounded. We show that optimal incentives must be bang‐bang. Moreover, under a distributional condition, the optimal rule is a maximally enforced deficit limit, triggering the maximum feasible penalty whenever violated. Violation optimally occurs under high enough shocks if and only if available penalties are weak and such shocks are relatively unlikely. We derive comparative statics showing how rules should be calibrated to features of the environment.

We propose a robust solution concept for Bayesian persuasion that accounts for the Sender's concern that her Bayesian belief about the environment—which we call the conjecture —may be false. Specifically, the Sender is uncertain about the exogenous sources of information the Receivers may learn from, and about strategy selection. She first identifies all information policies that yield the largest payoff in the “worst‐case scenario,” that is, when Nature provides information and coordinates the Receivers' play to minimize the Sender's payoff. Then she uses the conjecture to pick the optimal policy among the worst‐case optimal ones. We characterize properties of robust solutions, identify conditions under which robustness requires separation of certain states, and qualify in what sense robustness calls for more information disclosure than standard Bayesian persuasion. Finally, we discuss how some of the results in the Bayesian persuasion literature change once robustness is accounted for, and develop a few new applications.

ABSTRACT Academics and practitioners agree that there are substantial barriers to systematically transferring audit research knowledge to policy‐makers. We adopt a design science approach to investigate the efficacy of employing a research synthesis, embedded in an interactive process with audit standard setters, to transfer such knowledge. We identify a standard‐setting issue that, we argue, is typical of the class of problems encountered by both parties when attempting knowledge transfer. Following design science prescriptions, we evaluate the pragmatic validity of our prototype research synthesis and its creation process. We provide initial evidence (“proof of concept”) that a research synthesis process can effectively and efficiently facilitate academic research knowledge transfer to inform audit standard setters' deliberations. Finally, we provide evidence that the problem of academic research knowledge transfer in accounting standard setting and evaluation continues. Our study and findings reflect how design science facilitates change in real‐world problem contexts through research‐based proofs of concept.

ABSTRACT We examine whether restricting managers' discretion through GAAP impacts the usefulness of accounting information in debt contracting. Our study informs standard setters and regulators regarding the debt contracting implications of limiting managers' discretion via accounting standards. We predict and find that under more restrictive standards, lenders make more non‐GAAP modifications to GAAP‐based performance measures, suggesting that restrictions of managers' discretion reduce the usefulness of accounting information. We perform two additional analyses to enhance identification. First, in line‐item‐level analysis, we document a positive relation between the exclusion of specific nonrecurring items from contractual definitions of earnings and the number of restrictions in the GAAP standards that apply to each specific item each year. Second, using difference‐in‐differences tests around standard changes, we find that the propensity to exclude items varies positively with changes in the restrictiveness of related standards. Moreover, we predict and find that restrictive standards are also positively associated with loan spreads but significantly less so when lenders adjust GAAP numbers in loan contracts. Overall, this study improves our understanding of how attributes of accounting standards impact the usefulness of accounting information.

ABSTRACT In this study, we examine auditors' claims of professional disempowerment and strategic responses to Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) inspections. Our research is based primarily on 27 semistructured interviews with audit partners (23) and managers (4) of large accounting firms. Drawing on key insights from institutional theory, we show that the tensions between inspectors and auditors reflect an intraprofessional tug‐of‐war between two competing but legitimate logics of professionalism. More specifically, our findings indicate that CPAB inspections have given rise to a mechanical logic of audit professionalism that is driven by the efforts of inspectors to promote a generalizable theoretical ideal of auditing that revolves around best practices and attention to technical minutiae. This mechanical logic competes with a clinical logic of audit professionalism that is driven by the efforts of audit partners and managers to promote a more relativistic, applied form of expert knowledge. To manage this dynamic of intra‐institutional complexity, quality experts (QEs) have emerged in firms' organizational structures as ambidextrous third parties—that is, professionals who master both logics and are capable of bridging the institutional divide by influencing the relationships between inspectors and auditors through a variety of brokering strategies. By considering inspectors as insiders rather than outsiders to the profession, we argue that auditors' claims of professional disempowerment should be interpreted carefully and critically. We also suggest that the professional autonomy and judgment of engagement partners and managers has been displaced significantly within firm boundaries into the hands of QEs. Our analysis offers a richer conceptualization of institutional ambidexterity by examining it as a relational process of social influence rather than as a set of individual characteristics.

ABSTRACT We investigate whether hedge funds (HFs) undertake activism in the corporate bond market. Although there is a growing empirical literature investigating HF activism in the equity market, we know little about the role of HF activists in the corporate bond market. The empirical setting is the active enforcement of bondholders' rights during 2003–2007, triggered by issuers' violation of a standard bond covenant requiring timely financial reporting. Using HF holding data of convertible bonds in Form 13F filings, we identify HF interventions. The patterns of HF ownership suggest that HFs actively purchased convertible bonds to increase their ownership before the issuance of default notices. Relative to other interventions, HF interventions are more likely to target companies with higher levels of cash holdings but less likely to target companies with a greater amount of private debt outstanding. Furthermore, we find that HF interventions are associated with elevated bond trading frequency before late filing notifications and issuances of default notices, as well as a wealth transfer from stockholders and non‐intervening bondholders to intervening bondholders. Taken together, the empirical evidence demonstrates that HFs take actions to force the issuance of default notices in response to delay in financial reporting, suggesting that the primary objective of HF activism in this setting is to extract short‐term profit from bond issuers.

ABSTRACT This study examines the usefulness of analysts' book value forecasts and the economic factors driving analysts' issuance of these forecasts. Guided by the real‐options‐based valuation model (ROM) of Zhang (2000), we explicitly link book value forecasts to the need for such information in valuation. We first establish that analysts' book value forecasts are superior to forecasts that are mechanically imputed from analysts' own earnings forecasts and those from random walk models and are incrementally informative beyond analysts' earnings, cash flow, and dividend forecasts. We then employ the ROM to explore the distinct information embedded in book value forecasts and analysts' decisions to issue these forecasts. Consistent with our expectations, we find that (i) book value forecasts convey growth information that is significantly correlated with ex ante indicators of real options, while analysts' earnings forecasts do not display this property; and (ii) analysts issue more book value forecasts when either growth options or, to a lesser extent, abandonment options are an important part of firm value. Our study sheds light on how analysts' book value forecasts are useful and under what circumstances analysts provide such information to meet investors' needs.

ABSTRACT We examine how audit partners' geographic proximity to clients affects audit quality. We use hand‐collected data to show that approximately half of audit partners are assigned to clients headquartered more than 100 km away from the partners' home locations. Few of these partners relocate after receiving their assignments and, as a result, more than one‐third of clients are audited by partners who must commute long distances to visit the client in person. We explore this phenomenon by first modeling how distance affects partner‐client matching. We find that partners' geographic proximity to a prospective client is an important matching criterion, but also that trade‐offs are made when other partner characteristics such as industry specialization are more likely to be important. Next, consistent with our prediction, we show that audit quality is lower when partners reside farther from their clients. We corroborate our primary findings by showing that the association between partner distance and audit quality is mitigated when partners have access to direct flights to their clients' headquarters and when clients are geographically dispersed. Our paper should be informative for regulators, practicing auditors, and academics interested in how partner‐client matching affects audit outcomes.

ABSTRACT Collusion between managers who share private information represents a significant control concern for firms. Prior research suggests that mutual monitoring contracts that incentivize honest reporting do not prevent all collusion, making it important to understand how elements of the control environment may facilitate collusion, as well as how control choices—and collusion itself—affect subsequent behavior within the firm. Results of two experiments show that the frequency of collusion between managers in a repeated‐interaction setting is greatest when one can view the other's reports before making their own (“open internal reporting”) and slack obtained from misreporting is shared with a non‐reporting employee (“shared interest”). Moreover, although open (versus closed) internal reporting increases collusion in a single‐shot setting with or without a residual claimant to managers' budget reports being present, neither openness alone nor shared interest alone increases collusion in a repeated‐interaction setting. Results further suggest that collusion improves managers' perceptions of autonomy and group identification, resulting in greater cooperation on a subsequent task and potentially reducing the costs of some collusion to the extent such cooperation benefits the firm. Finally, open internal reporting worsens managers' perceptions of autonomy and group identification which, for managers who did not previously engage in collusion, leads to less cooperation on a subsequent task. In total, these results highlight to firms that the costs of collusion in repeated‐interaction settings frequently found in practice may be greatest when the common control choices of open internal reporting and shared interest are made in tandem, and that open internal reporting may carry another unintended cost in the form of lower cooperation on other tasks.