This paper tries to explain why the issuers of an asset would restrict what information is available about their asset. In a world where knowledge is valued, market forces should induce disclosure, but we often see markets (such as the market for mortgage-backed securities) where assets' issuers refuse to release valuable information. We present a model of market liquidity and find that market liquidity can both rise and fall with the quantity of released information. More information may increase asymmetries of information and “lemons” style breakdowns. We find that asset bundling is more advantageous when private information is more accurate, which may be the case in the mortgage-backed securities market.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: G14, G32.

Taxation, Earnings management, Net operating losses, Income shifting

Recent theory argues that concern about job security creates an incentive for managers to smooth earnings in consideration of both current and future relative performance. We find support for this theory. Our evidence suggests that when current earnings are ‘poor’ and expected future earnings are ‘good’, managers ‘borrow’ earnings from the future for use in the current period. Conversely, when current earnings are ‘good’ and expected future earnings are ‘poor’ managers ‘save’ current earnings for possible use in the future. However, sensitivity analysis indicates that we cannot rule out selection bias as a potential alternative explanation for our findings.

Abstract. Analysts have been found to underweight the innovation in the most recent quarterly earnings when forecasting next‐quarter earnings, and these expectations have been posited as an explanation for post‐earnings‐announcement drift. This study uses an experimental asset market to examine whether similar errors in forecasting quarterly earnings are made by student‐subjects. We examine two aspects of their behavior: (1) do subjects underestimate the autocorrelation in quarterly earnings when forming earnings expectations? and (2) are asset prices consistent with a subject's underestimation of the autocorrelation in quarterly earnings? We observe subject errors in forecasts that underweight extreme innovations in the most recent quarterly earnings by approximately 40 percent. The prices in the experimental markets also fail to reflect fully the most recent innovation in quarterly earnings. We are able to predict the sign of the incorrect pricing, from the mean initial earnings predictions of the subjects, in 74 percent of the 135 markets. These forecast errors observed in this study are consistent with forecast errors observed for analysts, and this consistency suggests that errors in analysts' forecasts may be at least partially attributable to the use of judgmental heuristics.

We investigate the role of book-tax conformity in firms' financial reporting activities using a unique set of publicly traded firms that were forced to switch for tax purposes from the cash method to the accrual method. Prior to the mandated change, little trade-off existed between tax planning and financial reporting goals for these firms. After the change, recognition criteria for tax and financial reporting purposes became more alike, increasing the trade-off between financial reporting and tax objectives. Our results suggest that required use of the accrual method for tax purposes causes firms to defer income for financial statement purposes.

Von Neumann-Morgenstern preferences over terminal consumption can be inferred from wealth on a single sample path when markets are complete and returns follow a known law in a neoclassical investment problem in either a discrete-time i.i.d. binomial model or a continuous-time diffusion model with a Gaussian state variable. Numerical results suggest that useful information about preferences can be obtained from even a single noisy sample of monthly observations of a portfolio over 5 years.

Shareholder activists and regulators are pressuring U.S. firms to separate the titles of CEO and Chairman of the Board. They argue that separating the titles will reduce agency costs in corporations and improve performance. The existing empirical evidence appears to support this view. We argue that this separation has potential costs, as well as potential benefits. In contrast to most of the previous empirical work, our evidence suggests that the costs of separation are larger than the benefits for most large firms.