We analyze a procedure common in empirical accounting and finance research where researchers use ordinary least squares to decompose a dependent variable into its predicted and residual components and use the residuals as the dependent variable in a second regression. This two‐step procedure is used to examine determinants of constructs such as discretionary accruals, real activities management, discretionary book‐tax differences, and abnormal investment. We show that the typical implementation of this procedure generates biased coefficients and standard errors that can lead to incorrect inferences, with both Type I and Type II errors. We further show that the magnitude of the bias in coefficients and standard errors is a function of the correlations between model regressors. We illustrate the potential magnitude of the bias in accounting research in four commonly used settings. Our results indicate significant bias in many of these settings. We offer three solutions to avoid the bias.

Using U.S. banking data between 1993 and 2014, this paper investigates the relationship between CEO optimism and bank liquidity creation. It finds that banks with optimistic CEOs create more liquidity over the entire sample period. In addition, the positive effect of CEO optimism on liquidity creation became stronger during the subprime crisis of 2007‒2009, and this stronger effect was mainly driven by banks with high capital ratios and large banks. These results imply that CEO optimism is likely to encourage banks to create liquidity, especially during banking crises. The results presented in this paper hold when subjected to various robustness checks.

This study examines whether acquirers make better acquisition decisions when target firms’ financial statements exhibit greater comparability with industry peer firms. We predict and find that acquirers make more profitable acquisition decisions when target firms’ financial statements are more comparable—as evidenced by higher merger announcement returns, higher acquisition synergies, and better future operating performance. We also find that post‐acquisition goodwill impairments and post‐acquisition divestitures are less likely when target firms’ financial statements are more comparable. Finally, we find that acquirers benefit most from comparability when acquirers’ ex ante information asymmetry is higher, acquirers operate in volatile operating environments, and management knows relatively less about the target. In total, our evidence suggests targets’ financial statement comparability helps acquirers make better acquisition‐investment decisions and fosters more efficient capital allocation.