Kirk, Reppenhagen, and Tucker (2014) find that investors use individual analyst forecasts as additional earnings benchmarks. We investigate whether executives manage earnings to beat these individual benchmarks. Using year-end effective tax rate (ETR) manipulation as our setting, we find that firms decrease ETRs from 3rd to 4th quarter to meet or beat a greater percentage of individual forecasts. We also find some evidence that firms use incremental ETR changes to meet forecasts by key analysts. After controlling for the distance to the nearest forecast, our evidence shows that firms are more likely to beat an incremental forecast with a decrease in ETR compared to missing an incremental forecast with an increase in ETR. Our study highlights the strategic nature of earnings management by providing evidence that managers consider individual forecasts to calibrate earnings management decisions.

We use changes in mandatory pension funding to investigate the relation between internal financing constraints and incremental investment. Pension funding relief enacted in 2012 significantly reduced mandatory employer contributions to defined benefit pension plans. Prior to learning of the pension relief, firms disclosed their expected pension contributions under FAS 132R, which allows us to infer changes in investment plans in response to this unanticipated pension relief. Although our setting is pensions, our inferences contribute to the broader literature on how access to finance impacts the firm. We predict and find that pension relief resulted in increased nonpension investment in the year after enactment for financially constrained firms, and is stronger for constrained firms with greater pension underfunding. Our results are consistent with pension relief providing an important means of funding investment for financially constrained firms. Our identification strategy and results provide an important innovation to the literature examining the effect of financing constraints on investment.

Social hierarchy theory predicts that the power and status of an organizational function have a first-order effect on the function's ability to influence outcomes. We find that the rank of the title of the top tax executive is positively associated with tax planning after controlling for treatment effects. Our inferences remain when (1) using changes in the size of the c-suite as a shock to the relative power and status of the tax function, and (2) examining promotions and demotions in title rank. Point estimates suggest that tax function power and status are up to 2.6 times as important as tax planning resources, up to 4.0 times as important as tax function-specific expertise, and, more often than not, more important than manager fixed effects. Overall, results suggest that the power and status of the tax function is often what matters most in determining tax outcomes.