This study investigates how sophisticated market participants use tax‐based information by examining whether analysts' street effective tax rates (ETRs) are informative. When assessing firm performance, analysts exclude items they believe do not reflect current performance, resulting in “street” metrics such as street ETR. However, evidence on the properties of the components of street earnings is limited. Examining the informativeness of street ETRs is important because taxes are a significant component of earnings, and the extent to which analysts understand taxes and incorporate them into their analyses is not clear. Using a hand‐collected sample of analyst reports, we find that while approximately 35% of street ETRs have at least one tax‐specific exclusion, over 90% reflect the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions. Further, both tax‐specific exclusions and the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions significantly contribute to differences between GAAP and street ETRs. Consistent with analysts' understanding of the implications of tax and nontax exclusions, our results suggest that street tax metrics exhibit greater predictive ability about future tax outcomes and provide more information to investors than GAAP tax metrics. We also find that ETR exclusions are of higher quality when the magnitude of the potentially excluded item is greater and when managers disclose pro forma earnings. Collectively, our findings suggest that analysts understand taxes, but selectively exert effort to incorporate tax‐based information into their assessment of firm performance. Our study should be informative to regulators and users of financial information because it provides evidence regarding the usefulness of street earnings metrics.

We reexamine the positive association between stock option vega and earnings management previously documented by Armstrong, Larcker, Ormazabal, and Taylor (2013; henceforth, ALOT). In contrast to ALOT, prior empirical research and practitioner literature emphasizes earnings management's goals of increasing stock price and reducing volatility. Specifically, we assess whether the association is robust to (i) employing discretionary accruals that are less prone to misspecification, (ii) focusing on a more recent time period, and (iii) including additional controls for period‐specific factors. Our main findings are as follows. First, we fail to find a positive association between vega and earnings management after controlling for performance‐related misspecification in discretionary accruals. Second, we find no association between vega and earnings management in a more recent time period, suggesting the results of ALOT may be sensitive to period‐specific factors. Last, the positive association vanishes when we control for year fixed effects, growth opportunities, or monitoring, suggesting the original results of ALOT's research may be sensitive to correlated, omitted variables. Overall, our results question the extent to which vega incentivizes earnings management. Our results may be of interest to boards of directors in designing executive compensation contracts, to regulators in crafting policies that maintain high levels of financial reporting quality, and to researchers seeking to identify settings where earnings management incentives are most salient.