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.

Studies a stylized model in which a division manager's historical cost reports are verified. Verification in one-period setting; Full-information solution; Solution in the presence of unverified cost reports; Solution in the presence of verification; Verification in two-period setting; Role of historical information.

Budgeting, Commitment issues, Information systems, Resource allocation

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 Firm disclosures are observed by multiple audiences with diverse interests. Recognizing this practical feature, studies have examined how conflicting incentives provided by the multiple recipients of the information affect disclosure outcomes. Understandably, studies have not examined scenarios wherein disclosure incentives from recipients align in the same direction. With aligned incentives, disclosure incentives are presumably “additive.” This paper challenges such thinking. We model a firm that faces a potential entrant and a scrutinizing regulator so each individually incentivizes the firm to withhold favorable market news. However, we show that their joint presence can drastically change the disclosure equilibrium: the firm may voluntarily disclose good news seemingly in self-sabotage. Such disclosures attract entry, compelling the firm to yield its monopoly position. However, by ceding market power, the firm boosts consumer surplus and soothes regulatory concerns. The ensuing reduction in regulatory costs borne by the firm can then increase the firm’s overall value.

ABSTRACT A firm's stock price may reveal information to a variety of participants, including its strategic partners and competitive rivals. This paper establishes that when a firm discloses cost information it can confound decision-relevant demand information embedded in the stock price that observers can otherwise extract. With stock price valuing firm profit (not cost and revenue separately), a disconnect is introduced between the firm's actions and its intent—it discloses more (less) on one dimension when its intent is to conceal (reveal) on another. Moreover, the firm's intent can be to either reveal or conceal information depending on what gives its partner the best competitive edge over its rival. Consequently, a firm's disclosure is made strategically, incorporating both valuation and competitive effects. Interestingly, the firm's disclosure strategy is designed in close concert with its production decision, i.e., the firm's optimal accounting and real decisions interact with each other for maximum impact.

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.