Ernst R. Berndt, Thomas H. McCurdy, David E. Rose; On Testing Theories of Financial Intermediary Portfolio Selection, The Review of Economic Studies, Volum

This study aims to understand international rotations (“secondments”) as a brokerage mechanism within globally networked public accounting firms (GNFs). Through interviews with 29 secondees on tour to or from the U.S. (individuals on rotation from one member firm to another member firm in a specified role for a fixed period) and 11 firm leaders, we find that secondments are viewed as a critical brokerage function in performing global client service and global risk management. Specifically, secondees bridge gaps in the GNF structure by brokering network ties, technical knowledge, sociocultural knowledge, and language. Secondees embody different brokerage roles and can fulfill more than one brokerage role at a time, depending on the purpose of the secondment and the stage of deployment. Collectively, secondments are important mechanisms by which structural holes are reduced between participating member firms and proximal member firms, ultimately benefiting the global firm and the global clients they serve.

Studies find evidence that opportunistic reporting often accompanies fair value measurement. However, research has not determined whether the source of this opportunism is the estimate of fair value. Using detailed information on insurers' investment holdings, we separate the use of fair value measurement discretion from the application of non-measurement-related discretion in accounting for impairments of financial assets. Our evidence contradicts the view that fair value measurement discretion plays a large role in opportunistic avoidance of impairment recognition for investment securities. Instead, managers appear to avoid recording impairment losses by opportunistically applying subjective criteria regarding perceived loss persistence and intent to hold. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the paper.

When a U.S. multinational corporation shifts income from the U.S. to foreign jurisdictions, it incurs costs and reaps benefits. The benefits may be reduced if the shifted income must be returned to the U.S. as a dividend in the short term and face the same U.S. tax it would have if the income had not been shifted. Firms, then, have incentive to defer repatriation of earnings and to fund domestic cash needs with external financing. The cost of external financing, however, is increasing in financial constraints, leading to the prediction that constrained firms will be unable to defer repatriation and, therefore, will reap no benefits from shifting. Using a new methodology for measuring income shifting, we find, consistent with predictions, that financially constrained firms shift less income from the U.S. to foreign countries than their unconstrained peers. We estimate that financially constrained firms shift out 20 percent less of pre-shifted income than unconstrained firms. Translating this percentage to dollar values, the mean (median) constrained firm shifts $16 million ($7 million) out of the U.S. each year, while the mean (median) unconstrained firm shifts $321 million ($134 million) out of the U.S. each year. Assuming that the inability to defer repatriation is the primary constraint preventing the U.S. worldwide tax system from being a de facto territorial system, we use our findings to estimate that changing to a pure territorial tax system would increase outbound income shifting by U.S. multinationals by 8 percent.

Rankin, Schwartz, and Young (2008) find experimental evidence that manipulating whether the budget request of the subordinate requires a factual assertion has no effect on budgetary slack when the superior can reject the budget. This calls into question the role of honesty in participative budgeting settings. Using Rankin et al.'s (2008) manipulation to capture honesty effects, we examine the robustness of honesty effects on budget proposals when the superior has rejection authority in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we document that honesty has a strong effect on budgetary slack when the salience of distributional fairness is reduced by withholding the relative pay of the superior from the subordinate. In Experiment 2, we document that honesty continues to have a strong effect on budgetary slack when the salience of reciprocity is increased by giving the superior the ability to set the subordinate's salary. Thus, our evidence suggests that honesty effects on budget proposals are generally robust to giving the superior rejection authority. Our study helps explain prior experimental results and clarifies the role of honesty in participative budgeting settings. Data Availability: Experimental data are available from the authors upon request.

Seemingly self-serving attributions either attribute favorable performance to internal causes (enhancing attributions) or poor performance to external causes (defensive attributions). Managers presumably provide such attributions in earnings press releases to heighten (dampen) investors' perceptions of the persistence of good (bad) earnings news, thereby increasing (decreasing) the market reward (penalty) for good (bad) earnings news. Building on attribution theory and prior research on earnings commonality, this study investigates cross-sectional differences in investors' responses to quarterly earnings press releases that contain seemingly self-serving attributions. Using a random sample of press releases from 1999 to 2005, we find that firms that provide defensive attributions to explain earnings disappointments experience less severe market penalties when: (1) more of the their industry peers also release bad news, and (2) their earnings share higher commonality with industry- and market-level earnings. On the other hand, firms that provide enhancing attributions to explain good earnings news reap greater market rewards when: (1) more of their industry peers release bad news, and (2) their earnings share lower commonality with industry- and market-level earnings. Collectively, our results demonstrate that investors neither ignore seemingly self-serving attributions nor accept them at face value, but rely on industry- and firm-specific information to assess their plausibility. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from the sources identified in the text.

This paper investigates the effect of investments in internal investor relations (IR) departments on firm outcomes. We find that companies initiating internal professional IR experience increases in disclosure, analyst following, institutional investor ownership, liquidity, and market valuation relative to a matched sample of control firms. We also examine the differential impact the exogenous shock of Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) had on firms with an established professional IR department. We find these IR firms more than doubled their level of public disclosure post-Reg FD. Despite IR firms losing a potential communications channel following Reg FD adoption, we find they did not suffer adversely and instead show a post-Reg FD increase in analyst following, institutional investors, and liquidity relative to a control sample of similar non-IR firms. This implies that the effectiveness of professionalized internal IR increased post-Reg FD consistent with IR firms being relatively better positioned to navigate the more complicated regulatory environment. JEL Classifications: D82; M41; G11; G12; G14; G24 Data Availability: Data are publicly available from the sources identified in the paper with the exception of the membership data from the National Investor Relations Institute, which is a proprietary dataset.

Audit researchers have a long-standing interest in understanding whether issuing a going concern report to financially stressed clients protects auditors from litigation. An endogeneity issue arises, in that litigation risk affects the going concern decision and the going concern decision impacts auditor litigation risk. Using a simultaneous equations approach, we find a significant positive association between auditors' ex ante litigation risk and going concern reporting. By applying simultaneous equations, we also find a significant negative association between going concern reporting and auditor litigation, suggesting that auditors deter lawsuits by issuing going concern reports to their financially stressed clients. Our research further provides a more rigorous analysis of the relation between going concern reporting and lawsuit outcomes in the form of auditor litigation dismissals, small settlement amounts, and large settlement amounts. Our results indicate that when auditors are named in lawsuits, having issued a going concern report reduces the likelihood of large financial settlements. Data Availability: The data used in this study are publicly available through sources identified in the study.

We examine how subjective performance evaluations are influenced by the level and controllability of an accompanying measure of a separate performance dimension. In our experiment, supervisors evaluate the office administration performance of a hypothetical subordinate. We find that supervisors' subjective evaluations are directionally influenced by an accompanying objective measure of sales performance, even after excluding participants who perceive informativeness across measures. Consistent with concerns for fairness and motivation, we also find an asymmetric uncontrollability effect—supervisors' evaluations are higher when an uncontrollable factor decreases the subordinate's sales (i.e., they compensate for bad luck), but are not lower when the uncontrollable factor increases the subordinate's sales (i.e., they do not punish for good luck). This evidence suggests that supervisors use discretion provided to evaluate performance on one task to adjust for perceived deficiencies in the evaluation of performance on other tasks. Our study integrates theories of cognitive bias and motivation, highlighting the need to consider the potentially interactive effects of different performance measures in multi-task settings.

Larger offices of Big 4 auditors are predicted to have higher quality audits for SEC registrants due to greater in-house experience in administering such audits. We test this prediction by examining a sample of 6,568 U.S. firm-year observations for the period 2003–2005 and audited by 285 unique Big 4 offices. Results are consistent with larger offices providing higher quality audits. Specifically, larger offices are more likely to issue going-concern audit reports, and clients in larger offices evidence less aggressive earnings management behavior. These findings are robust to extensive controls for client risk factors and to controls for other auditor characteristics. While the evidence suggests audit quality is higher on average in larger Big 4 offices, we make no claims that audit quality is unacceptably low in smaller offices.