This article discusses the information on the paragraph no. 5. The Paragraph No. 5 under "Expense" in the 1948 Revision of Accounting Concepts and Standards Underlying Corporate Financial Statements of the U.S. reads that An assignment of all or a portion of the cost of an asset to expense, made in good faith after considered judgment and after competent review, in accordance with the accounting concepts and standards of the time, is not subject to reversal in a later period. Errors of a mechanical and non-judgment nature should be corrected in the period of their discovery. The Committee on Concepts and Standards is in agreement with the apparent basic purpose of this statement to reduce the possibility of manipulation of the net income calculation through reversals, revisions and reaccounting of past depredation charges and other amortizations. At the same time it recognizes that a position unalterably opposed to the correction of errors of judgment is both arbitrary and difficult to defend.

Guided by the performance feedback literature, we study PCAOB inspections as a nonstandard feedback event. We use an experiential questionnaire to collect and analyze perceptions, reactions, and responses to inspection feedback from 120 partners and managers subject to a recent PCAOB inspection. Despite varying perceptions, we find on average auditors perceive strong firm support but also that firms acquiesce to inspectors. Generally, the feedback source, inspectors, are perceived as professional, organized, and knowledgeable and auditors agree with the feedback message, perceiving it as consistent and well reasoned. We observe a range of auditor reactions (satisfaction with and motivated to use inspection feedback), responses at the engagement level (improvements to audit quality and inspection risk or impression management), and individual responses. Multivariate analyses show more positive feedback perceptions improve reactions, which enhance desirability of responses and are robust to considering the inspection outcome, offering insights for refining inspection interactions and processes.

Although q2 measures how well a pattern of means fits a custom contrast, there is no guidance for what values are “good.” We survey experimental accounting researchers who assess the fit between plots of means and contrast weights as poor, acceptable, good, or excellent. We find that graphical presentation effects and researchers’ individual attributes influence their assessments. This suggests that research needs an ex ante method for evaluating q2, grounded empirically in the wisdom of the crowd across many different presentations, rather than relying solely on the idiosyncratic assessments of individual researchers. Using fuzzy set theory, we develop such a method that researchers can use to characterize q2 = 0.100, for example, as mostly good fit, leaning toward acceptable. Our approach has significant advantages over bright-line cutoffs commonly used for other statistical indices. Overall, our study can improve our discipline’s assessments of fit between experimental results and custom contrast weights. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

The negative effects of common ownership on competition have received significant attention, but many proposed mechanisms for institutional investor influence seem implausible. We develop and test an analytical model of optimal compensation in an oligopoly with common ownership, focusing on revenue-based pay as a plausible channel through which institutional investors might influence competition. Our model implies a negative effect of common ownership on firms’ use of revenue-based pay. Using both associative analyses and an event study difference-in-differences design based on plausibly exogenous institutional mergers, we find no evidence of a negative relation between common ownership and the use of revenue-based pay, except in an economically small subsample of extremely concentrated owners. Results involving relative performance incentives are similar. Collectively, our results provide no support for the notion that cross-owning blockholders in general influence compensation contracts in order to soften executives’ incentives to compete aggressively. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

We examine how disclosure and manager reputation influence capital raised when there is no commercial substance underlying the investment. Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs or “blank check” companies) do not have operations or substantive assets at the IPO but promise to use the funds raised to acquire a private firm, generally within two years. Given the lack of commercial substance and historically poor ex post performance, it is unclear what SPACs disclose at the IPO and why investors invest. Although disclosure is important in traditional IPOs, the underlying information available differs for SPACs. Nonetheless, our evidence suggests disclosures are useful to SPAC investors, although differently than for traditional IPO investors. We also examine manager reputation and find prior SPAC or CEO experience and celebrity status are associated with funds raised. Even when an investment lacks commercial substance, disclosure and reputation are important for investing decisions. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Boards of directors encourage risk-averse managers to take risky actions by providing stock options and severance pay. We demonstrate that the ability of these incentives to encourage risk-taking hinges on the level of uncertainty facing the manager. We confirm prior findings that stock option convexity encourages risk-taking but find that this relation only holds when market-wide uncertainty is low. We also confirm prior findings that severance pay encourages risk-taking but find that this relation only holds during high market-wide uncertainty and negative market-wide performance. Finally, we find that compensation committees respond to variation in uncertainty by adjusting the level of option grants. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of incentives to take risk varies with the market-wide uncertainty, and that boards consider this in annual compensation design. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Regulators and researchers express concern about auditors who leave their firms for employment at their clients, due to lingering relationships which might represent a threat to audit quality. These relationships could negatively impact audit quality through undue influences of the client personnel on auditor judgment. We examine how these relationships influence novice auditors during evidence collection. Understanding the effects of alumni affiliation on evidence collection is important because undiscovered issues at this phase may go unaddressed, potentially hurting audit quality. Contrary to most research findings, we find that alumni affiliation can benefit the audit by increasing auditors’ evidence collection. However, we also find, when auditors become depleted, the benefits of alumni affiliation actually reverse, as auditors overrely on the relationship, leading them to prematurely cease evidence collection. These findings have implications for both practitioners and researchers. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

We conduct an experiment in the securities-based crowdfunding setting to investigate whether some investors avoid accounting information for psychological reasons, even when they understand the information is useful in their decision-making. Results suggest investors who experience relatively more psychological discomfort when working with quantitative information are relatively less likely to acquire the financial statements of a potential crowdfunding investment. Importantly, this effect is incremental to any effect of investors' quantitative ability (i.e., their numeracy) and attenuates with an intervention designed to help investors overcome their psychological discomfort. Altogether, the results extend our understanding of the theory of information avoidance, provide a behavioral explanation for investors' documented underuse of accounting information, and can inform regulators as they revise crowdfunding regulations.