To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
6450 results

Capsule Commentaries.

The Accounting Review 1986 61(4), 787-793
Reviews several books. "Secrets of the Tax Revolt," by James Ring Adams; "Financial Statement Analysis: Theory, Application, and Interpretation," 3rd ed., by Leopold A. Bernstein; "Perspectives in Auditing," 4th ed., by D.R. Carmichael and John J. Willingham; "Tax Shelter Alternatives: Measuring the Risks," by Michael N. Fitzerald.

Redefining Perceived Boundaries: Insights into the Audit Committee’s Evolving Responsibilities

The Accounting Review 2025 100(4), 193-219
ABSTRACT Oversight responsibilities for many audit committees (ACs) are evolving to include some of the hottest topics in the boardroom: enterprise risk management, cybersecurity, and environmental, social, and governance reporting. However, certain ACs avoid overseeing these evolving areas, creating significant variation across boards in the assignment of responsibilities. In this study, we seek to understand how ACs respond when environmental changes create new evolving risks that may extend the boundary of their traditional domain. To do so, we interview a diverse set of 29 AC members from U.S. publicly traded companies. We analyze our data through the theoretical lens of collaborative boundary work to identify how ACs respond by extending, blurring, or maintaining their perceived oversight boundaries, the related implications of these decisions, and their key tactics employed to manage AC workload. Our findings should be of interest to boards, investors, and regulators tasked with monitoring AC effectiveness. JEL Classifications: G34; M41; M42.

Connectors: A Catalyst for Team Creativity

The Accounting Review 2024 99(1), 57-80
ABSTRACT Creativity drives profit in an idea economy, and many companies organize teams to facilitate creativity. This paper investigates the strategic deployment of individuals to boost a team’s creativity. More individualistic team members tend to generate highly original ideas yet are less likely to share these ideas. We theorize that adding a connector—an individual strongly predisposed to form and foster relationships—to a team will enable more idea sharing among individualistic team members, thus increasing the likelihood that the team’s creative potential will be realized. We leverage a new conceptualization of the “connector” construct to identify connectors and then use an experiment to study the impact of their presence or absence on team creative performance. Our results support these predictions and suggest that connectors improve team creativity by enabling others to share in the creative process and not because connectors themselves exhibit greater creative performance than their average peer. Data Availability: The data reported in the paper are available from the authors.

Private Information Acquisition via Freedom of Information Act Requests Made to the Securities and Exchange Commission

The Accounting Review 2023 98(3), 229-255
ABSTRACT There is limited evidence about when, why, and which individuals incur costs to acquire nonpublic information about a firm, largely due to the difficulty of observing private information acquisition. To overcome this difficulty, we obtain data on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We predict and find that perceived information asymmetry between managers and outsiders resulting from both proprietary and agency costs triggers FOIA search. We categorize organizations making FOIA requests using their business descriptions and find that many, including law and intellectual property firms, are not expressly interested in obtaining information for near-term equity trading. Instead, their search activity relates to determinants beyond financial characteristics, including patent litigation and executive turnover. Taken together, we provide evidence on private information search by a relatively unexamined set of organizations and shed new light on the function of the SEC’s Office of FOIA Services. JEL Classifications: D82; D83; M41.

Stock Price Management and Share Issuance: Evidence from Equity Warrants

The Accounting Review 2021 96(5), 31-52 open access
ABSTRACT We investigate whether firms manage stock prices in anticipation of share issuance. Warrant exercise results in share issuance and warrant expiration dates are fixed years in advance, which precludes market timing. We predict firms manage stock prices to prevent (induce) warrant exercise when exercise is dilutive (anti-dilutive) to existing shareholders. To test our prediction, we examine stock returns around warrant expiration dates. We find that the difference between out-of-the-money (OTM) and in-the-money (ITM) firms' return patterns (i.e., post-expiration minus pre-expiration returns) is positive, and OTM (ITM) firms' return pattern is positive (negative). Return patterns of three sets of pseudo warrant firms differ from patterns of warrant firms. Return patterns are stronger when more feasible price changes are required to affect warrant expiration status, and firm-issued news items is a mechanism for price management. Thus, our findings provide evidence that firms engage in stock price management in anticipation of share issuance. JEL Classifications: G14; G15; G32; M41.

What's in a Name? Initial Evidence of U.S. Audit Partner Identification Using Difference-in-Differences Analyses

The Accounting Review 2019 94(5), 139-163
ABSTRACT We investigate changes in the quality and cost of audit services surrounding PCAOB Rule 3211, which requires disclosure of audit partner names in Form AP. To isolate changes due to Rule 3211 from other confounding factors, we use difference-in-differences analyses with separate control groups, including a group of companies that disclosed partner identities prior to Rule 3211. Our study also incorporates several measures from prior literature to proxy for various dimensions of audit quality. Evidence from the difference-in-differences analyses reveals that any immediate impact of Rule 3211 on audit quality or fees is limited to specific dimensions of audit quality, specific control groups, and/or specific company characteristics. We reach this conclusion after considering alternative research designs and evaluating confidence intervals for statistically insignificant coefficients. We caution that our findings only provide initial evidence and further research is necessary to evaluate other potential impacts of Rule 3211.

Who Trades on Pro Forma Earnings Information?

The Accounting Review 2007 82(3), 581-619 open access
In recent years, many companies have emphasized adjusted-GAAP earnings numbers in their quarterly press releases. While managers use different names to describe these nonstandard earnings metrics, the financial press frequently refers to them as “pro forma” earnings. Managers and other advocates of pro forma reporting argue that these disclosures provide a clearer picture of companies' core earnings. On the other hand, regulators, policymakers, and the financial press often allege that managers' pro forma earnings disclosures are opportunistic attempts to mislead investors. Recent evidence suggests that while many pro forma earnings disclosures are altruistically motivated, some may represent managers' attempts to portray overly optimistic financial performance. If this is the case, then less wealthy, less sophisticated, individual investors are arguably the most at risk of being misled. Consequently, this study investigates who trades on pro forma earnings information. Our intraday investigation of transactions around earnings announcements containing pro forma earnings information reveals that less sophisticated investors' announcement-period abnormal trading is significantly positively associated with the magnitude and direction of the earnings surprise based on pro forma earnings. In contrast, we find no association between sophisticated investors' trading and manager-reported pro forma information. Overall, our analyses and numerous robustness tests suggest that the segment of the market that relies on pro forma earnings information is populated predominantly by less sophisticated individual investors. This evidence is particularly relevant to standard-setters and regulators given that Section 401(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and subsequent SEC regulations are specifically designed to protect ordinary investors from misleading pro forma information.

A/B Testing with Fat Tails

Journal of Political Economy 2020 128(12), 4614-000
We propose a new framework for optimal experimentation, which we term the “A/B testing problem.” Our model departs from the existing literature by allowing for fat tails. Our key insight is that the optimal strategy depends on whether most gains accrue from typical innovations or from rare, unpredictable large successes. If the tails of the unobserved distribution of innovation quality are not too fat, the standard approach of using a few high-powered “big” experiments is optimal. However, if the distribution is very fat tailed, a “lean” strategy of trying more ideas, each with possibly smaller sample sizes, is preferred. Our theoretical results, along with an empirical analysis of Microsoft Bing’s EXP platform, suggest that simple changes to business practices could increase innovation productivity.

The Impact of Childhood Social Skills and Self-Control Training on Economic and Noneconomic Outcomes: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment Using Administrative Data

American Economic Review 2022 112(8), 2553-2579 open access
A childhood intervention to improve the social skills and self-control of at-risk kindergarten boys in the 1980s had positive impacts over the life course: higher trust and self-control as adolescents; increased social group membership, education, and reduced criminality as young adults; and increased marriage and employment as adults. Using administrative data, we find this intervention increased average yearly employment income by about 20 percent and decreased average yearly social transfers by almost 40 percent. We estimate that $1 invested in this program around age 8 yields about $11 in benefits by age 39, with an internal rate of return of around 17 percent. (JEL I21, I26, I28, J13, J24, J31, Z13)