Recent reviews of the academic literature indicate that little is known regarding how users evaluate the materiality levels auditors use or respond to quantitative materiality disclosure. Regulators around the world have taken different stances on whether materiality should, or should not, be disclosed in the auditor’s report. In response to the dearth of research on these policy decisions, we examine the effect of audit materiality disclosures, or lack thereof, on professional investors’ decision making across different investment contexts (debt vs. equity, public vs. private). Our study is designed to test global audit public policy and as such our hypotheses are motivated by assertions made by regulators, auditing standards, and audit theory. Among a sample of 246 professional investors in our main experiment and 91 professional investors in two supplemental experiments, we find no consistent evidence that investors incorporate materiality disclosures into their investment decisions. Most importantly, we find evidence that investors’ understanding of materiality is not in line with regulator assertions. For example, investors fail to make consistent connections between the amount of disclosed audit materiality and the level of auditor effort. Our results hold across debt and equity investment settings for both public and private companies. In sum, our findings suggest that disclosures of audit materiality are not well understood by professional investors and are not viewed as decision relevant. This research informs practitioners, regulators, and academics regarding the effect of materiality disclosure on investor decision making as well as stakeholders’ views and expectations of overall materiality.

We use a machine learning technique to assess whether the thematic content of financial statement disclosures (labeled topic ) is incrementally informative in predicting intentional misreporting. Using a Bayesian topic modeling algorithm, we determine and empirically quantify the topic content of a large collection of 10‐K narratives spanning 1994 to 2012. We find that the algorithm produces a valid set of semantically meaningful topics that predict financial misreporting, based on samples of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions (Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases [AAERs]) and irregularities identified from financial restatements and 10‐K filing amendments. Our out‐of‐sample tests indicate that topic significantly improves the detection of financial misreporting by as much as 59% when added to models based on commonly used financial and textual style variables. Furthermore, models that incorporate topic significantly outperform traditional models when detecting serious revenue recognition and core expense errors. Taken together, our results suggest that the topics discussed in annual report filings and the attention devoted to each topic are useful signals in detecting financial misreporting.

In 2012, the US Department of Labor imposed new disclosure requirements for indirect fees that 401(k) retirement plan service providers earn through revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds. This paper examines the impact of these fee disclosure requirements on the level and structure of fees paid by retirement plans, as well as service providers’ ability to price discriminate between plan sponsors of different sophistication. We document that the new disclosure requirements are associated with a substitution of direct fees for indirect fees and a reduction in total fees paid by smaller plans, and that mutual fund providers responded by introducing retirement fund share classes with lower 12b-1 fees.

The fact that money, banking, and financial markets interact in important ways seems self-evident. The theoretical nature of this interaction, however, has not been fully explored. To this end, we integrate the Diamond (1997, Journal of Political Economy105, 928–956) model of banking and financial markets with the Lagos and Wright (2005, Journal of Political Economy113, 463–484) dynamic model of monetary exchange—a union that bears a framework in which fractional reserve banks emerge in equilibrium, where bank assets are funded with liabilities made demandable in government money, where the terms of bank deposit contracts are affected by the liquidity insurance available in financial markets, where banks are subject to runs, and where a central bank has a meaningful role to play, both in terms of inflation policy and as a lender of last resort. Among other things, the model provides a rationale for nominal deposit contracts combined with a central bank lender-of-last-resort facility to promote efficient liquidity insurance and a panic-free banking system.

According to an influential argument, corporate hedging supports corporate investment when internal cash flows are volatile and external financing is costly (Froot, Scharfstein and Stein, 1993). Despite its vast influence, the predictions of this theory have not yet been directly tested using actual derivative cash flows. This study uses hand-collected data on cash flows from derivative positions in the oil and gas industry between 2000 and 2015. Strikingly, on average, an extra dollar in derivative cash flows translates into one more dollar in capital expenditure. During industry recessions, the median ratio of derivative cash flows to capital expenditure rises to 20% for hedging firms, suggesting that derivatives play a crucial role in sustaining investment when the cost of external financing rises abruptly.

We offer a new explanation as to why international trade is so volatile in response to economic shocks. Our approach combines the uncertainty shock idea of Bloom (2009) with a model of international trade, extending the idea to the open economy. Firms import intermediate inputs from home or foreign suppliers, but with higher costs in the latter case. Due to fixed costs of ordering firms hold an inventory of intermediates. We show that in response to an uncertainty shock firms optimally adjust their inventory policy by cutting their orders of foreign intermediates disproportionately strongly. In the aggregate, this response leads to a bigger contraction in international trade flows than in domestic economic activity. We confront the model with newly-compiled monthly aggregate U.S. import data and industrial production data going back to 1962, and also with disaggregated data back to 1989. Our results suggest a tight link between uncertainty and the cyclical behavior of international trade.

Prior research documents that auditors fail to revise audit plans to effectively address identified fraud cues. While auditors may understand what evidence would address such cues, we propose that auditors fail to apply this understanding because they use implemental mindsets when making decisions for themselves (i.e., deciding). However, we also propose that auditors use deliberative mindsets when advising. To test our predictions, we assign auditors to a decider or an advisor role in a realistic case that contains seeded fraud cues and asks them to consider revising last year's plan. We also manipulate whether the case prompts auditors to revise the plan unconventionally . Results indicate decider‐condition auditors use implemental mindsets: Prompted deciders follow the unconventional plan without regard to underlying fraud risk and unprompted deciders stick with the same‐as‐last‐year plan. Advisor‐condition auditors use more deliberative mindsets: In the prompt and no prompt conditions, they identify plans that are strongly linked to their own fraud risk assessments and that better align with experts' recommended plan for effectively addressing the seeded fraud cues. Supplemental analyses suggest deciding and advising auditors both follow the experts' plan when they believe in its potential effectiveness but, after controlling for the influence of perceived effectiveness, deciding auditors follow it to a greater extent simply because they believe the PCAOB wants it. By contrast, advising auditors do not exhibit signs of excessive PCAOB influence. Our findings provide evidence that seeking informal advice (or thinking like an advisor) helps auditors to effectively revise audit plans in response to identified fraud risk—it helps when a prompt is present or not, suggesting it complements rather than merely substitutes for interventions meant to improve auditors' judgment and decision making.

The SEC has long asserted that earnings management practices result in adverse consequences for investors. We examine whether SEC oversight affects firms' accounting quality in terms of earnings management trade‐offs. We expect that increased firm‐specific regulatory scrutiny, in the form of an SEC comment letter, will induce management to switch from accrual‐based earnings management (AEM), which is a main focus of the SEC, to real‐activities‐based earnings management (REM), which is not likely to be commented on in the SEC's review process. Consistent with our predictions, we find that AEM is lower and REM is higher following the receipt of a comment letter, relative to non‐comment‐letter years and a propensity‐score‐matched sample of non‐comment‐letter firms. However, we do not find a significant difference in total earnings management (i.e., the sum of AEM and REM), suggesting that the higher REM acts as a substitute for lower AEM activity. We further find that our results are driven by accounting comments relating to estimates and accruals and not by classification‐only comments, which suggests that a comment letter that does not question specific issues associated with estimates and accruals is not a strong enough signal to induce the firm to change earnings management behavior. Additionally, the shift to REM is attenuated for firms with high institutional ownership. These results collectively suggest that the comment letter process effectively constrains AEM but has the unintended consequence of firms, on average, switching to REM.

The total effects of a regulatory change consist of direct effects and indirect effects (spillovers), but the standard difference-in-difference approach mostly ignores potential indirect effects. During the 2007 full repeal of the uptick rule, short-sellers become much more aggressive across the board, even in control stocks where the uptick rule is already suspended. This finding is consistent with positive and significant indirect effects on control stocks, likely driven by aggressive broad list-based shorting. In contract, the indirect effect coefficients on shorting aggressiveness are negative for the 2005 partial uptick repeal, possibly due to substitutions between control and treatment stocks.

We show that individuals’ macroeconomic expectations are influenced by their socioeconomic status (SES). People with higher income or higher education are more optimistic about future macroeconomic developments, including business conditions, the national unemployment rate, and stock market returns. The spread in beliefs between high- and low-SES individuals diminishes significantly during recessions. A comparison with professional forecasters and historical data reveals that the beliefs wedge reflects excessive pessimism on the part of low-SES individuals. SES-driven expectations help explain why higher-SES individuals are more inclined to invest in the stock market and more likely to consider purchasing homes, durable goods, or cars. Received November 13, 2017; editorial decision February 12, 2019 by Editor Wei Jiang.