This research examines how investment experience and financial literacy impact investment‐related judgments. Financial literacy refers to a person's knowledge of fundamental financial concepts. I begin by documenting investors' demographic characteristics and financial literacy using a relatively large sample of participants ( n > 2,000) recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk under different categories of investment experience, which I benchmark against national samples of financial capability skills in the United States. I then replicate a sample of three accounting research experiments, varying the type and depth of the underlying accounting issue. Across the three experiments, the data show two main results: First, investment experience strengthens the influence of financial accounting disclosures on participants' investment‐related judgments. Second, financial literacy further strengthens the influence of financial accounting disclosures on investors' (but not noninvestors') judgments. Collectively, these findings suggest that investment experience and financial literacy can help to identify individuals who are more likely to be able and willing to study financial reporting information with reasonable diligence as they form their investment‐related judgments.

Schrand and Walther's (2000) archival evidence suggests that managers strategically disclose prior-period benchmarks in current earnings announcements, which, in turn, influences investors' judgments. Using a controlled experimental setting, I present evidence confirming that a transparent description of a transitory prior-period gain or loss affects how investors apply prior-period earnings when evaluating currentperiod earnings. I also provide evidence that this effect is likely to be unintentional on the part of investors, resulting from limitations in their memory for the prior-period event. Overall, the experimental results suggest that a quantitative description of the transitory prior-period gain or loss in a current earnings announcement helps investors to evaluate company performance. The results also highlight the need for consistency in reporting non-GAAP financial performance measures.

Prior research demonstrates that forecast optimism is, in part, a consequence of analysts' cognitive reactions to the scenarios managers use to communicate future plans. In two experiments, we examine whether counter-explanation (explaining why managers' plans could fail) reduces scenario-induced optimism. We find that when compared to analysts not asked to generate counter-explanations, analysts who complete the relatively easy task of generating few counter-explanations make less optimistic forecasts, but analysts who complete the relatively difficult task of generating many counter-explanations do not. Results demonstrate the usefulness of a cognitive, theory-based mechanism for reducing forecast optimism and suggest a boundary condition for the use of that mechanism.

Although prior research presents employees’ subjective valuations of their stock options as being either below or above firms’ opportunity cost of issuing options, we examine subjective valuations in terms of their distribution around cost. We argue that variation of subjective valuations within this distribution is at least partly attributable to employees’ failure to fully incorporate the time-value component of options and their tendency to, instead, anchor on readily-available components of option value. Using both “real-world” and experiment data, we show that a significant proportion of both employees (30 percent) and experiment participants (47 percent) anchor on three readily-available values, two of which lie below cost (zero value, intrinsic value) and one of which lies above (stock price). We further find that a stock option education program aimed at mitigating the tendency to disregard the time-value component leads to a significant change in valuations (in terms of both median values and dispersion) and lower reliance on simple anchors. Education in the form of cognitive feedback has a greater effect on subjective valuations of additional options with differing characteristics as compared to education in the form of outcome feedback on the original option holdings.

We examine how accounting transparency and investor base jointly affect financial analysts' expectations of mispricing (i.e., expectations of stock price deviations from fundamental value). Within a range of transparency, these two factors interactively amplify analysts' expectations of mispricing—analysts expect a larger positive deviation when a firm's disclosures more transparently reveal income‐increasing earnings management and the firm's most important investors are described as transient institutional investors with a shorter‐term horizon (low concentration in holdings, high portfolio turnover, and frequent momentum trading) rather than dedicated institutional investors with a longer‐term horizon (high concentration in holdings, low portfolio turnover, and little momentum trading). Results are consistent with analysts anticipating that transient institutional investors are more likely than dedicated institutional investors to adjust their trading strategies for near‐term factors affecting stock mispricings. Our theory and findings extend the accounting disclosure literature by identifying a boundary condition to the common supposition that disclosure transparency necessarily mitigates expected mispricing, and by providing evidence that analysts' pricing judgments are influenced by their anticipation of different investors' reactions to firm disclosures.

Researchers and practitioners in accounting and finance often investigate or advocate particular disciplined trading strategies, but little work investigates the determinants of individual investors' trading‐strategy reliance. We report two experiments, which provide evidence that the dual‐source model of overconfidence (Sniezek and Buckley [1991]) predicts the circumstances in which investors are more likely to rely on disciplined trading strategies. Our results indicate that reliance is more likely when investors trade portfolios of securities rather than trading on a case‐by‐case basis, particularly when investors have received feedback that their previous (unaided) trading decisions have been unprofitable. These results are driven by the number of shares that investors transact rather than by investors' directional agreement with the recommendations of the trading strategy, suggesting that the effects of a portfolio approach and trading experience occur by mitigating investors' overconfidence. The effects violate an aspect of economic rationality because our experiments ensure that investors in all conditions trade the same set of securities based on the same set of information.

We show that analysts from sell‐side firms generally recommend “glamour” (i.e., positive momentum, high growth, high volume, and relatively expensive) stocks. Naïve adherence to these recommendations can be costly, because the level of the consensus recommendation adds value only among stocks with favorable quantitative characteristics (i.e., value stocks and positive momentum stocks). In fact, among stocks with unfavorable quantitative characteristics, higher consensus recommendations are associated with worse subsequent returns. In contrast, we find that the quarterly change in consensus recommendations is a robust return predictor that appears to contain information orthogonal to a large range of other predictive variables.