We explore how rival firms respond when firms in their industry violate debt covenants. We find that rival firms increase advertising expense, and that this increase is proportional to the size of industry violators’ pre-existing market share. Rival firm product-market share also increases in the industry market share of violators, and this relation is more pronounced when products are more substitutable. Rival firm operating performance also increases in proportion to the industry market share of violators. Overall, these findings suggest that the increased creditor control associated with covenant violations has a significant influence on rival firms and product-market competition.

Prior studies suggest that income smoothing may be used as an earnings management tool by managers, and is associated with stock price declines when companies subsequently break smoothing patterns. We contend that investors' negative reaction in these situations is also driven by their magnified concerns about firm information risk, in addition to their decreased earnings expectations. Consistent with this argument, we find that bid-ask spreads around unexpected loss announcements are greater when preceded by higher levels of income smoothing. Furthermore, total spreads before the loss announcements were not greater for firms that exhibited higher income smoothing but had not reported earlier losses. This suggests that investors had difficulties seeing through managerial opportunistic motives before the unexpected loss announcements. Additionally, we find that institutional ownership and sell-side analyst coverage appear to moderate the positive association between income smoothing and bid-ask spreads, consistent with the monitoring role institutional investors and financial analysts play in constraining managerial opportunism. We also detect a significant decrease in the extent of income smoothing following loss announcements. Overall, our results are consistent with the view that income smoothing may be viewed by investors as being motivated by managerial opportunism instead of as communicating the true earnings results. Further analysis suggests that pursing a moderate amount of volatility in reported earnings may be the optimal financial reporting policy.

The beta anomaly, negative (positive) alpha on stocks with high (low) beta, arises from beta’s positive correlation with idiosyncratic volatility (IVOL). The relation between IVOL and alpha is positive among underpriced stocks but negative and stronger among overpriced stocks (Stambaugh, Yu, and Yuan, 2015). That stronger negative relation combines with the positive IVOL-beta correlation to produce the beta anomaly. The anomaly is significant only within overpriced stocks and only in periods when the beta-IVOL correlation and the likelihood of overpricing are simultaneously high. Either controlling for IVOL or simply excluding overpriced stocks with high IVOL renders the beta anomaly insignificant.

We set out in this study to determine whether individuals with higher levels of financial literacy are more likely to be active participants in the derivatives markets. Our empirical results, based upon an official National Survey undertaken by the Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan, reveal that even after controlling for stock market participation rates, financial literacy represents a significant benefit to individuals since it helps them to lower the entry barriers to purchasing complex derivatives products. We also find that household wealth, gender, residential location and diverse sources of information have significant effects on participation rates in the derivatives markets. Furthermore, when taking into consideration issues of accessibility or measurement error, the positive effects of financial literacy on derivatives market participation are found to remain largely unchanged.

ABSTRACT Many organizations offer profit sharing plans to motivate increased effort and goal congruence. However, an unintended consequence of such plans may be to reduce honesty in managerial reporting. We investigate two commonly observed profit sharing plans (individual and pooled) in a laboratory experiment where multiple agents with private cost information submit budget requests to an employer. Consistent with our prediction based on crowding theory, our findings suggest that honesty is reduced in the presence of an individual profit sharing plan. However, when a pooled profit sharing plan is used, the adverse effects on honesty are partially mitigated. Our results suggest that an unintended consequence of profit sharing (decreased honesty) can be mitigated through interdependency from pooled plans. The results have practical implications, given that organizations have flexibility in establishing both the size and scope of their profit sharing plans. Our study also contributes to our understanding of reporting behavior, particularly in multi‐agent settings.

ABSTRACT The triangle model of responsibility (Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, and Doherty 1994) predicts that the extent that investors hold management responsible for an adverse event is jointly determined by the links among three elements—management, the adverse event, and the relevant accounting regulations/standards or public norms. Applying this theory, we conduct experiments to examine how the locus of breach (external versus internal) moderates the efficacy of management's responsibility acceptance (higher versus lower). Our results show that management's higher (versus lower) responsibility acceptance is a more effective strategy in the presence of an external breach, but not in the presence of an internal breach (Experiment 1). Follow-up experiments suggest that this result is driven by the relative strength of the triangle links underlying the external versus internal breaches, rather than the locus per se. JEL Classifications: G40; M41. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Using hand-collected information, we find that analysts who own stock in a company they follow make more informative recommendations and exert more effort in covering the company. However, we also find that analysts with stock ownership issue more optimistic target price forecasts. These findings suggest that analysts’ stock ownership enhances the credibility of their recommendations by conveying their superior information, but also induces analysts to bias upwards their target price forecasts. Surprisingly, we find that 56% of analysts owning stock terminate their ownership while having a buy recommendation outstanding, suggesting a potentially widespread violation of the regulations on analysts’ research.

We examine how directors’ reputations are managed through disclosure choices. We focus on disclosures in the director biographies filed with the SEC. We find that a directorship on another board is more likely to be undisclosed when the other firm experienced an adverse event—such as an accounting restatement, securities litigation, or bankruptcy—during the director's tenure. Withholding such information is associated with a more favorable stock price reaction to the director's appointment and the loss of fewer subsequent directorships. These findings suggest that reputation concerns lead to strategic disclosure choices that have real consequences in capital and labor markets.

It is common practice worldwide for corporate insiders to put up stock as collateral for personal loans. We highlight a potential problem in such pledging. When controlling shareholders face a margin call threat if stock prices fall below the required level for a loan, they have an incentive to use corporate resources for their private benefit. We develop and test a margin call hypothesis that controlling shareholders may initiate share repurchases to fend off potential margin calls associated with pledged stocks in order to maintain their control rights. Investors seem to recognize such behavior and discount the potential benefits of repurchase programs. However, share pledges are not reliably related to repurchases when control rights are not a concern. We further show that regulatory restrictions of control rights on pledging effectively reduce the likelihood of firms' repurchasing. Overall, our results shed light on the impact of share pledges on corporate decisions.