We examine the influence of normative and regulative institutional factors on cost shifting by nonprofit hospitals in their publicly reported statements. We explore whether normative constraints imposed by stakeholders, who prefer that nonprofit hospitals allocate their resources toward patient-related program services, influence the extent to which nonprofit hospitals shift costs toward program services and away from administrative and fundraising categories, thereby appearing more efficient. We also explore whether regulative factors, such as oversight, influence cost shifting behaviors. Results indicate that nonprofit hospitals facing higher normative pressures to demonstrate efficiency shift costs to a greater extent, and hospitals facing higher regulatory oversight shift costs to a lesser extent. Consistent with prior research, we also find that hospitals that obtain higher donations revenue shift costs to a greater extent. Our results show that, in addition to economic factors documented by prior literature, institutional factors also influence nonprofit hospitals’ cost shifting behaviors.

We provide evidence on the characteristics of local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings for firms cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges relative to a matched sample of foreign firms currently not cross‐listing in the United States to investigate whether U.S. listing is associated with differences in accounting data reported in local markets. We find that cross‐listed firms differ in terms of the time‐series properties of earnings and accruals, and the degree of association between accounting data and share prices. Cross‐listed firms appear to be less aggressive in terms of earnings management and report accounting data that are more conservative, take account of bad news in a more timely manner, and are more strongly associated with share price. Furthermore, the differences appear to result partially from changes around cross‐listing and partially from differences in accounting quality before listing. We do not observe a similar pattern for firms cross‐listed on other non‐U.S. exchanges or on the U.S. over‐the‐counter market, suggesting a unique quality to cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges.

Evaluating organizational effectiveness is a significant challenge for nonprofit donors making donation allocation decisions. Donations may be misallocated if organizational effectiveness is inadequately assessed, and donors, who are often organizational outsiders, rely on nonprofit disclosures on IRS Form 990 to make such assessments. We examine whether donors value volunteer commitment, as measured by the number of volunteers that nonprofits disclose on Form 990, alongside financial and governance disclosures in assessing organizational effectiveness. Donors and volunteers prefer to make respective gifts of money and time to nonprofits that are effective in furthering their missions. Based on the premise that volunteers, as organizational insiders, are better positioned than donors to judge the impact of their contributions, we hypothesize that volunteer commitment provides value‐relevant information to donors for use in assessing imprecise effectiveness signals—namely, the program ratio and corporate governance disclosures. Consistent with this, we find that the value relevance of the program ratio and corporate governance disclosures to donors is increasing with the level of volunteer commitment. These results suggest that donors view volunteer commitment as a signal of effectiveness, useful in interpreting other signals of effectiveness. The evidence is more pronounced among nonprofits that report more credible volunteer disclosures, have a larger proportion of sophisticated donors, and are more complex. These findings have implications for regulators considering nonprofit disclosure policies, as well as nonprofit managers and directors engaging volunteers.

We examine how taxes affect donations given to nonprofit organizations and how this varies across nonprofit types. Most prior studies constrained tax price elasticities to be constant across nonprofits, primarily because the data do not provide donations by nonprofit type. Using nonprofit-level data and average marginal tax rates that vary across years and states, we estimate tax price elasticities by nonprofit type. We find an aggregate public charity elasticity of approximately −1.0 and a private foundation elasticity of approximately −2.0. These results suggest that the cost of the charitable contribution deduction is roughly proportional to its benefit for public charities, but that the deduction stimulates significant giving for private foundations. When we partition our elasticities across 24 public charity types, we find significant elasticities of −1.0 or larger for six types. This result suggests that the effect of the charitable contribution deduction varies significantly across nonprofit types.

Prior research finds that donors reward nonprofits that report larger program ratios with more donations and that program ratios frequently are subject to intentional manipulation as well as unintentional errors. We examine how donors react to low-quality ratios. We find that the average donor discounts ratios that are inflated by only the simplest and most observable of methods. We then examine the effect of financial data availability on the average donor's ability to unravel inflated ratios by using the historical shift in data availability that occurred in 1997 and 1998. We find that donors began to discount ratios only after 1998. Finally, we examine whether the discount applied to program ratios varies across donor sophistication (measured as the percentage of fund balances with restrictions) and find that sophisticated donors apply incrementally larger discounts to inflated ratios and discount ratios that are inflated by more complex methods.

We examine whether donors reward nonprofit organizations that report better governance. From a sample of 10,846 organizations from 2008 to 2010, we first identify seven nonprofit governance dimensions using factor analysis. We then test whether the quality of governance influences donor decisions by including the seven governance factors in the standard donor's demand model. We find consistent evidence that donations and government grants are positively associated with six of the seven factors that capture good governance, including formal written policies (e.g., conflict of interest), independent audits and audit committees, review and approval of executive compensation, board oversight (e.g., board independence), management characteristics (e.g., no related parties), and accessible financial information. Our results have implications for nonprofit managers and regulators. Moreover, mandatory disclosure of governance policies for nonprofit organizations provides an interesting contrast to mandatory adoption of governance policies for publicly traded companies. JEL Classifications: G18; G38; H39; L30; L31; L38; M40; M41; M42; M48. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

We examine how shareholder-level taxes affect the contemporaneous pricing of foreign firms' U.S. cross-listed and underlying home-country securities surrounding the 1997 reduction in U.S. capital gains tax rates. Consistent with tax capitalization, we find that the performance of cross-listed shares is negatively related to dividend yield, suggesting an abnormal price increase for shares with greater anticipated taxable capital gains. Due to barriers to cross-border arbitrage, underlying home-country securities, on average, do not react during the event, creating a temporary tax-induced pricing spread. When costs of arbitrage are low, the pricing disparity quickly dissipates and home-country shares closely mirror the pricing of their cross-listed counterparts. In further tests, we are unable to document lock-in behavior, which predicates a decrease in prices attributable to a surge in volume for shares with greater accrued taxable capital gains. Overall, our findings suggest that an exogenous shock to the U.S. tax regime reverberates in international asset prices, thereby affecting foreign firms' costs of capital.

We examine whether nonprofit organizations understate fundraising expenses in their publicly available financial statements. A large body of anecdotal evidence notes that an inexplicable number of nonprofits report zero fundraising expenses. We provide empirical evidence that the zero fundraising expense phenomenon is at least partly due to inappropriate reporting. We then examine to what extent these misreported expenses are the result of managerial incentives. Prior research finds an association between reported expenses and managerial compensation as well as the level of donations received. Using these findings we construct two incentive variables and find a positive association between misreporting behavior and managerial incentives. Our results also suggest that the use of an outside accountant reduces the probability that a nonprofit will misreport expenses, consistent with the use of an outside paid accountant increasing the reliability and usefulness of nonprofit financial reports. Finally, we find that SOP 98-2 reduced the probability that a nonprofit will misreport fundraising expenses.