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.

We investigate whether prior collaboration experience affects a focal partner's response to the precision of monitoring controls adopted by a new partner, with consequences for their goodwill trust in, and subsequent cooperation with, the new partner. We expect the partner to interpret their new partner's adoption of precise monitoring controls as either an effort to limit their autonomy or to reduce information asymmetry. The partner's experience with past partners is posited to determine which interpretation is salient, with negative (positive) experiences favoring the former (latter). We find that partners with an uncooperative (cooperative) experience exhibit lower (higher) goodwill trust in the new partner when controls are more precise. Further, prior experience moderates the indirect relation between the precision of monitoring controls and partner cooperation acting through goodwill trust. The results demonstrate the importance of prior experiences in the design of interfirm controls for current partner relationships. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers spend a minimum amount of their premium revenue on policyholder benefits. The Act specifies enforcement via a combination of insurer self-reporting, government examinations, and payment of policyholder rebates in cases where insurers fail to meet the required spending amount. We find that insurers' reported estimates are consistently overstated in situations in which more accurate estimates would have triggered rebate payments; publicly traded insurers (particularly those exhibiting poor financial reporting quality) exhibit the strongest evidence of strategic over-estimating. In aggregate, we estimate that approximately 14 percent of insurers engage in strategic over-estimates, and that insurer over-estimates resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in underpaid policyholder rebates. Our study illustrates how a combination of regulatory design choices and lax oversight can weaken the effectiveness of accounting-based regulation and have substantial economic consequences.

Prior literature presents various perspectives on the role of financial reporting. One view is that mandatory periodic reporting disciplines managers and encourages timely voluntary disclosure. We examine this “confirmation hypothesis” using the shock to financial reporting quality experienced by Arthur Andersen clients forced to switch auditors. Consistent with the confirmation hypothesis, we find that former Andersen clients increase disclosure after they change auditors. They increase forecasting frequency and enhance forecasting precision and specificity. We present additional cross-sectional evidence that shows Arthur Andersen clients with larger increases in financial reporting quality increased their disclosure by relatively more, even within the sample of Arthur Andersen clients. We supplement our main findings with a battery of tests to reduce the possibility that alternative shocks and uncertainty drive our results. Our findings support complementarity between financial reporting quality and voluntary disclosures.

In an online experiment, the immediate (Roth) versus deferred taxation of retirement income affects taxpayers' investment decisions such that tax-deferred plan investors under-adjust for future tax burdens and overestimate their future wealth compared to Roth investors. When presented with a specific after-tax monetary goal, Roth account holders invest more in higher-risk, higher-return assets than tax-deferred account holders. We investigate four aspects of this investment context that could alleviate these differences: (1) implementing a “do-your-best” goal, (2) reframing specific goals in pre-tax dollars, (3) explicitly prompting investors to estimate future tax burdens, and (4) providing performance feedback. These interventions reduce differences between Roth and tax-deferred investor behaviors, but do not entirely close the gap on their own. In combination, reframing goals and prompting future tax estimations encourage tax-deferred account holders to invest in risky assets to the same degree as Roth investors only when paired with performance feedback.

We examine how information dissemination via mobile device applications (apps) affects nonprofessional investors' judgments. In response to the prevalence of mobile device use, the media ungroups content into smaller pieces to accommodate users, and apps use push notifications to highlight this content. These changes increase users' ability to access investment information in real time, leaving some investors feeling as if they are missing out if they are not continuously connected. We validate a scale to capture investors' fear of missing out on investment information (I-FoMO) and document that I-FoMO is distinct from traditional FoMO that occurs in social settings. Then, using an experiment, we find that receiving ungrouped content via a mobile device has a greater effect on investment allocations in the presence, rather than absence, of push notifications. Further, we find that these results hold for higher, but not for lower, I-FoMO investors. JEL Classifications: G23; M41; M48; M49. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Regulators now require auditors to provide information about how they evaluate complex estimates. Because users encounter this auditor-provided information alongside management-provided information, we jointly examine the value relevance of these disclosures. We also examine whether visual cues in audit reports influence how nonprofessional investors use these disclosures. We find that disclosures from managers and auditors provide different value-relevant information about the same underlying issue. While users struggle to weight fully narrative auditor disclosures in their valuation judgments without corresponding management disclosures, visual cues facilitate their weighting of information about the audit. Specifically, users take increased price protection when auditor disclosures also include visual cues. However, consistent with market signaling theory, corresponding voluntary disclosures from management attenuate this price protection. This suggests management can mitigate negative valuation effects that may arise from auditor disclosures, and implies that visual cues in audit reports can prompt managers to increase disclosure transparency. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

We find that firms that grant performance-contingent (p-c) equity awards with accounting-based vesting conditions to their CEOs have lower cost of debt and less restrictive loan terms. The benefits of p-c accounting-based awards on debt financing are greater when the moral hazard problem faced by debtholders is potentially more significant—for example, for firms with poorer credit ratings and lower asset tangibility. We find some evidence that certain types of p-c equity awards with stock price-based conditions increase the cost of debt financing. The adoption of p-c accounting-based awards increases firm value, as indicated by stock and bond event studies. Overall, our findings suggest that the incentive compatibility of accounting-based p-c awards mitigates the potential agency conflict between shareholders and debtholders.

We use experimental economic markets to examine the impact of changing institutional design features on audit quality. Specifically, we manipulate auditors' economic accountability to managers by altering who hires the auditor—a manager or an independent third party—and auditors' psychological accountability to investors by explicitly stating that the auditor is hired on the investors' behalf. Our design shifts auditors' accountability from managers, who have directional goal preferences, to investors, who prefer judgment accuracy. We find that removing auditors' economic accountability to managers and replacing it with psychological accountability to investors significantly increases audit quality. This increase in audit quality occurs despite the independent third party randomly hiring auditors. In an additional treatment, we incorporate auditor accuracy into the third-party hiring algorithm and find even higher audit quality. Our results suggest that altering auditors' accountability relationships can significantly enhance audit quality. Data Availability: The laboratory market data used in this study are available from the authors upon request.

We study how public firm misvaluation affects private peer firm investments. An economic competition hypothesis predicts a negative relation because misvaluation-induced new investment by public firms crowds out investment by private peers that share common input or output markets. An alternative shared sentiment hypothesis predicts a positive relation because private firm stakeholders share in the sentiment associated with misvaluation in public markets. Misvaluation is proxied using both the price-to-fundamental ratio and an exogenous instrument obtained from mutual fund flows. The evidence is consistent with the shared sentiment hypothesis, and robust to alternative treatments for growth opportunities. Private firms finance misvaluation-induced investment primarily internally or externally with debt, not equity. Finally, misvaluation-induced investment increases future return on investment for private firms, in contrast with public firms. Overall, these findings suggest that overvaluation in public markets increases private firm investments and has beneficial effects on private firm investments by relaxing financing constraints. JEL Classifications: G32; M41. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the paper.