The SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 101 to address its concern that firms were masking true performance by managing earnings using accelerated revenue recognition. Critics of this Accounting Bulletin stated that it would eliminate industry-accepted revenue recognition practices and reduce the quality of reported earnings. The FASB's revenue recognition discussions echo these concerns stating that revenues recorded prior to the completion of the earnings process contain value-relevant information about future performance. This paper investigates these two hypotheses using a sample of firms that accelerated revenue recognition prior to SAB No. 101 adoption (SAB 101 firms) and a matched set of firms that were unaffected by this regulation (unaffected firms). Our earnings distribution tests indicate that SAB 101 firms are more likely to meet earnings benchmarks. Specifically, we find that, in the pre-adoption period, SAB 101 firms report fewer small negative and more small positive earnings than they do in the post-adoption period and than do unaffected firms in the pre-adoption period; SAB 101 firms report fewer small negative and more small positive earnings changes in the pre-adoption period compared to the post-adoption period. We also document that SAB 101 firms are more likely to have weaker corporate governance and more likely to have financial covenants, providing them with greater incentives to manage earnings. However, we find that the association between earnings and future cash flows and between unexpected earnings and earnings announcement period returns were higher for SAB 101 firms than for unaffected firms in the preadoption period, indicating higher earnings informativeness for SAB 101 firms. These associations declined for SAB 101 firms in the post-adoption period, suggesting that SAB No. 101 caused a decline in earnings informativeness. Overall, our results suggest that, although the revenue recognition practices targeted by SAB No. 101 have been used by some firms to manage earnings, the regulation's prohibition of revenue recognition prior to completion of the earnings process, on average, results in less informative earnings since these unearned revenues provide value-relevant information.

This paper investigates how banks alter the timing and magnitude of transactions and accruals to achieve primary capital, tax, and earnings goals. Recent research, including Moyer [1990], Scholes, Wilson, and Wolfson [1990], and Collins, Shackelford, and Wahlen [1995], provides evidence that banks execute transactions and manage accruals to achieve some or all of these objectives. A common feature of these studies is the assumption that when managers make a particular accrual or transaction decision, all other decisions are fixed. We relax this assumption and allow such decisions to be determined simultaneously.

We document potential cross-sectional differences in how expected loss accounting will affect provision timeliness to provide important policy insights and contribute to the literature regarding the estimation of the expected loss model adoption impact and provision timeliness determinants. Our findings that analyst provision forecasts incrementally predict future nonperforming loans (NPLs) and market returns suggest that the incurred loss provision does not incorporate all available future loss information. Higher incremental coefficients on provision forecasts for banks with greater unrecognized future losses and incurred loss constraints suggest CECL could affect cross-sectional provision timeliness differences by removing these constraints. Specifically, the provision forecast and future NPL association increases with banks' unconstrained future loss estimates reflected in loan fair value disclosures and incurred loss constraints indicated by heterogeneous loans individually reviewed for impairment. This association also increases with EPS forecast errors, but decreases with target price and NPL forecast errors.

We ask whether credit rating agencies receive higher fees and gain greater market share when they provide more favorable ratings. To investigate this question, we use the 2010 rating scale recalibration by Moody's and Fitch, which increased ratings absent any underlying change in issuer credit quality. Consistent with prior research, we find that the recalibration allowed the clients of Moody's and Fitch to receive better ratings and lower yields. We add to this evidence by showing that the recalibration also led to larger fees and to increases in the market shares of Moody's and Fitch. These results are consistent with critics’ concerns about the effects of the issuer‐pay model on the credit ratings market.

In this study we examine whether banks owned by interstate multibank holding companies coordinate their security gains and losses to manage their tax, earnings, and capital management objectives. Specifically, we examine whether the realization of security gains and losses is related to the objectives of the individual bank, the consolidated group, or both. We find subsidiary banks manage their gain realizations not only to reduce their own state taxes, but also strategically to reduce their consolidated groups' tax expense. Specifically, members of consolidated banking groups shift gain recognition to lower-taxed group members and away from higher-taxed group members. In addition, we find evidence suggesting that banks realize security gains and losses to manage both their own and their groups' financial statement earnings.

The SEC's Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative (December 2013) highlights a difference between accounting regulators and academics in their perceptions of Item 1A risk factor disclosure effectiveness. Because most academic evidence relies on pre‐financial crisis data, we compare changes in risk factor disclosure informativeness before and after the crisis as a possible explanation for this disconnect. We further explore this discrepancy by considering (i) three classes of market participants, (ii) new, discontinued, and repeated disclosures, and (iii) nonmarket outcomes. Our results confirm previous findings but indicate that those results no longer hold in the subsequent period. Specifically, we find that although equity, option, and bond markets react to unexpected risk factor disclosures in the period leading up to the financial crisis (2006–2008), the market reactions decline significantly in the post‐crisis period (2009–2014). Perhaps surprisingly, the documented changes in informativeness are not driven by disclosures repeated from one year to the next but instead result from new disclosures initiated in the current year and, in the option and debt markets, also from disclosures discontinued from the previous year. Finally, using the Altman Z ‐score as an objective bankruptcy risk measure, we find that the association between risk factor disclosures and companies’ future bankruptcy risk declines significantly in the post financial crisis period. Taken together, these findings contribute to the current disclosure effectiveness debate by highlighting that risk factor disclosures, which were informative in the preceding period, become less reflective of the underlying economic risks and thus less informative to investors in the post‐crisis period. La déclaration des facteurs de risque est‐elle toujours pertinente ? Données tirées des réactions du marché à la déclaration des facteurs de risque avant et après la crise financière

Using a large sample of debt contracts, we study the determinants of excluding nonrecurring items from covenant calculations. We investigate this choice across firms, across items, and through time. We find that nonrecurring items are more likely to be excluded when the agency costs of debt are higher and less likely to be excluded when they predict borrowers' performance. Our evidence further suggests that the interplay between agency costs and nonrecurring items' predictive ability affects the decision to exclude these items from covenant computations. Finally, when examining the exclusion by different nonrecurring item types, we find confirmatory evidence that the probability of exclusion decreases with the predictive ability for borrowers' future performance of major nonrecurring item types. Overall, our research extends the literature on the determinants of contract design and improves understanding of the usefulness of accounting information in debt contracting.

We explore how an accounting measure of information asymmetry between lead and participating lenders influences syndication structures by examining whether lead lenders’ commercial and industrial (C&I) loan-loss provision validity affects the fraction of loans they retain. We first conduct multiple tests showing that C&I provision validity reflects banks’ underlying screening and monitoring effectiveness. We then find lead lenders’ loan share decreases with C&I provision validity, but not with non-C&I provision validity. Consistent with an information effect, we further find this association is attenuated by (i) alternative information sources about the borrowers and (ii) previous lead/participant relationships and participant/borrower relationships.

We investigate how high-profile accounting frauds affect peer firms' investment. We document that peers react to the fraudulent reports by increasing investment during fraud periods. We show that this finding is not driven by frauds that have a higher ex ante likelihood of detection or by an association between fraud and investment booms. In addition, we find that peers’ investments increase in fraudulent earnings overstatements, and in industries with higher investor sentiment, lower cost of capital and higher private benefits of control. We also find evidence consistent with equity analysts potentially facilitating the spillover effect.

A flourishing stream of research suggests that liquidity-constrained firms with low accounting quality have limited access to capital for investments. We extend this research by investigating whether these firms are more likely to lease their assets. Lessors’ superior control rights allow them to provide capital to constrained firms with low-quality accounting reports. Consistent with this conjecture, we find that low accounting quality firms have a higher propensity to lease than purchase assets. To verify that leasing does not merely reflect these firms’ desire for off-balance-sheet accounting, we investigate whether banks’ access to private information and monitoring affect the relation between accounting quality and leasing. We find the association between accounting quality and leasing decreases when banks have higher monitoring incentives and when loans contain capital expenditure provisions. These results suggest that other mechanisms can substitute for the role of accounting quality in reducing information problems.