Researchers often use regression-based x-Scores (e.g., conservatism C-Score , misstatement F-Score ) from a stage 1 model as a dependent variable in stage 2. We argue that this x-Score analysis can cause coefficient biases and interpretation problems because (1) x-Score does not capture new sources of variation, and (2) the estimates often hinge on unacknowledged technical assumptions. Instead, we recommend that researchers include the test variables and the relevant controls in stage 1, obviating the need for an x-Score . In replication analyses, some important published findings change after we remove the coefficient bias caused by the use of x-Score as a dependent variable.

We develop new distribution discontinuity tests conditional on multiple explanatory variables for analyzing meet-or-just-beat behavior around benchmarks. These tests combine Burgstahler and Dichev's (1997) meet-or-just-beat intuition with a flexible statistical model that addresses important limitations of the existing tests. Our method considerably outperforms logit-based tests of distribution discontinuity determinants and changes the interpretation of a major finding in the earnings discontinuity literature. As a secondary benefit, it also has slightly higher statistical power than histogram-based tests of distribution discontinuity existence. Our method is robust, easy to implement using our publicly available Stata command, and could benefit researchers in many fields.

Central to the economic theory of sticky costs is the proposition that managers consider adjustment costs when changing resource levels. We test this proposition using employment protection legislation (EPL) provisions in different countries as a proxy for labor adjustment costs. Using a large sample of firms in 19 OECD countries during 1990–2008, we find that the degree of cost stickiness at the firm level varies with the strictness of the country-level EPL provisions. This finding supports the theory that cost stickiness reflects the deliberate resource commitment decisions of managers in the presence of adjustment costs.

We investigate analytically and empirically the relationship between demand uncertainty and cost behavior. We argue that with more uncertain demand, unusually high realizations of demand become more likely. Accordingly, firms will choose a higher capacity of fixed inputs when uncertainty increases in order to reduce congestion costs. Higher capacity levels imply a more rigid short-run cost structure with higher fixed and lower variable costs. We formalize this “counterintuitive” argument in a simple analytical model of capacity choice. Following this logic, we hypothesize that firms facing higher demand uncertainty have a more rigid short-run cost structure with higher fixed and lower variable costs. We test this hypothesis for the manufacturing sector using data from Compustat and the NBER-CES Industry Database. Evidence strongly supports our hypothesis for multiple cost categories in both datasets. The results are robust to alternative specifications. Data Availability: All data used in this study are available from public sources.

Sales decreases affect earnings more than sales increases because of cost stickiness. We hypothesize that this correlated omitted variable constitutes a confounding effect in standard asymmetric timeliness models. Controlling for a piecewise linear effect of sales changes in these models decreases the measured asymmetric timeliness significantly and changes inferences about the average level of conservatism and the extent of cross-sectional variation in conservatism. Validation tests confirm that the asymmetry for sales changes is consistent with sticky costs and is distinct from conditional conservatism. Future empirical research on conditional conservatism should recognize the potential confounding effect of sticky costs.

Accountants examine multiple indicators when assessing whether individual assets are impaired. Different indicators predict cash flows over varying time horizons, and their importance varies with how far into the future individual assets are expected to generate cash flows. We predict that earnings exhibits asymmetric timeliness with respect to multiple indicators, including stock return, sales change, and operating cash flow change, which differentially explain write-downs of current assets, long-lived tangible assets, and indefinite-lived goodwill. We predict an interaction effect between indicators, such that the total impact of several consistent indicators is greater than the sum of their individual impacts. Empirical estimates for U.S. firms are consistent with our predictions and yield new insights about the effects of multiple indicators for both conservatism and impairment research. Our multi-indicator asymmetric models also change inferences about the relative explanatory power of economic factors versus reporting incentives in asset impairments.