Contemporary Accounting Research最新文献

Regulators have raised concerns about the quality of component auditors' work. Of particular concern is that component auditors often do not adequately perform procedures and gather enough quality evidence. This failure is likely caused by component auditors' different interpretations of lead auditor instructions and by their lack of responsibility. Our interview findings suggest that component auditors tend to interpret lead auditor instructions concretely because they often receive detailed instructions from lead auditors. We propose that a responsibility prompt reminding component auditors to be aware of their obligations to the group audit engagement can improve their evidence collection. In two experiments, we find that our proposed responsibility prompt can effectively improve component auditors' evidence collection decisions and that this finding holds across different cultural settings. Our third experiment provides evidence that a responsibility prompt improves component auditors' evidence collection when provided to auditors who receive instructions that prime low-level (but not high-level) construals. Overall, our findings suggest that prompting component auditors to internalize the responsibility of a group audit engagement is a viable way to improve the quality of group audits.

Prior research shows that contingent liabilities do not accurately predict future cash payments due to the managerial discretion afforded by accounting standards. We examine the extent to which current accounting guidance for a material contingent liability—the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) under Financial Interpretation No. 48 (FIN 48)—generates accruals that are predictive of future income tax cash outflows. We document that UTBs fully unwind as cash tax payments over the subsequent 5 years, suggesting that managers, on average, accurately incorporate their expectations of future tax liabilities. This result persists for firms that are (1) most affected by the implementation of FIN 48, (2) unable to impound detection risk into their reserves, (3) engaged in relatively more ex ante tax avoidance, (4) suspected to have engaged in earnings management through the tax accounts, and (5) subject to plausibly exogenous shocks to tax reporting. Overall, our results suggest that current accounting guidance under FIN 48 for contingent tax liabilities enables managers to accurately report, and financial statement users to reliably predict, future cash obligations.

Distributed, rather than co-located, teams increasingly perform audit work, raising regulator concerns that distributed team communication issues may affect audit quality. We investigate upward communication (i.e., raising issues to supervisors), a key communication dimension related to audit quality. In Study 1, we survey 69 senior auditors to establish that distributed team upward communication suffers. Furthermore, distributed team auditors identify less with their teams and struggle to know when and how to speak up. Because both are linked to inhibited upward communication, we next experimentally test firm practices with the potential to attenuate these problems. Study 2, an experiment with 128 staff auditors and interns, reveals that making auditors' professional identities salient improves upward communication on co-located teams with strong team identities but not on distributed teams with weak team identities. Study 3, an experiment with 58 staff auditors, replicates a key Study 2 finding with a design that makes no reference to team identity strength. Specifically, in the presence of a salient professional identity, upward communication is significantly higher for co-located relative to distributed team auditors. Study 4, an experiment with 69 staff auditors, focuses solely on distributed teams. It indicates that several distributed team management practices, including one-on-one and standing daily meetings, encourage upward communication. Finally, Study 5, informal interviews with eight audit seniors, corroborates key survey and experimental findings. Combined, our results provide insights into why distributed team communication suffers, refine audit voice theory, and provide regulators, practitioners, and researchers with multiple paths to improve audit quality.

The firm-level bullwhip effect is the amplification of demand uncertainty along a supply chain—that is, fluctuations in production (for manufacturing firms) or purchases from suppliers (for retailers or wholesalers) in a firm tend to be greater than its demand fluctuations. We predict that the bullwhip ratio (a proxy for the bullwhip effect) amplifies the relation between demand uncertainty and cost structure. We expect this amplifying effect because the bullwhip ratio determines the extent to which demand uncertainty translates into uncertainty in production or purchases, which, in turn, affects cost structure. Using data from public US firms over the 1990–2020 period, we find results consistent with our prediction. Specifically, we find that both the negative relation between demand uncertainty and cost elasticity in the manufacturing sector and the positive relation between the two in the retail/wholesale sectors are stronger for firms with higher bullwhip ratios. We contribute to the literature on cost structure by highlighting the important role of the bullwhip effect in cost structure decisions.

We explore how securities litigation affects corporate reputation. Experts remain concerned that nonmeritorious securities class actions—those that will be dismissed or settled for nuisance amounts—cause reputational damage. Although several prior studies show reputational costs for nonmeritorious cases, they generally use indirect measures based on returns or total market losses, which are mechanically associated with securities litigation elements. In contrast, we use a relatively direct reputation measure from Fortune's “Most Admired Companies” list. We find significant reputational damage after meritorious litigation, with the strongest cases having the largest effects. However, we find no evidence of reputational damage after nonmeritorious litigation. We also find that Fortune's reputational damage measure is associated with more negative returns around the litigation filing date. We show possible mechanisms for our results, as initial legal filings contain information allowing market participants to assess case merits. Our results imply that reputational damage is primarily due to fraud, which securities litigation helps reveal to the market, rather than litigation itself. Thus, reputational damage is not an issue in over 70% of securities class actions due to the high frequency of nonmeritorious cases.

This article examines the effect of managers' personality trait of extraversion on the voluntary disclosure of their firms. Our results from analyzing archival data from Sweden show that the extraversion scores of CEOs and CFOs obtained from psychological tests are positively associated with the voluntary disclosure scores of their firms. The effect of managerial extraversion on disclosure is, moreover, stronger when managerial discretion or managerial job demands are higher. We also find that extraversion affects managers' disclosure styles during earnings conference calls.

The IRS administers tax laws enacted by Congress. As part of the IRS's duties, they often consider taxpayers' financial statements to help ensure accurate tax reporting and payments. We posit that enhanced financial statement disclosures of tax information under FASB Interpretation Number 48 (FIN 48) lead to more IRS scrutiny and alter the incentives for corporate innovation. Using patent applications as a measure of corporate innovation, we employ a difference-in-differences research design with publicly listed US firms as the treatment group and privately held US firms not subject to the disclosure requirements as the control group. We find robust evidence that, following the onset of FIN 48, the number of patent applications by publicly listed firms decreased between 15.4% and 24.3% relative to private firms. This decline in patent applications is attributable to incremental innovation, suggesting that firms lower innovation related to projects with tax benefits that are more likely to be scrutinized by the taxing authorities. These findings suggest that there are real effects of IRS scrutiny and, in particular, real effects of tax disclosures under FIN 48 on corporate innovation.

We build on recent advances in options pricing research to propose a novel measure of the ex ante relative importance of information events. Our firm-level measure captures the extent to which investors view an event as important, independent of its realized outcome. We first validate the measure and then demonstrate how it can be used to (1) study heterogeneity across firms in the relative importance of information events; (2) identify firms for which an event was important, even though the realized outcome did not result in a meaningful stock reaction; and (3) examine questions about how the importance of an event impacts firm decisions, where using realized return-based measures of event importance would result in an endogeneity problem.

In this paper, we investigate the real effects of information transparency in crowdfunding markets. Our analysis shows that the crowdfunding market features an under-implementation inefficiency, driven by two types of uncertainty that consumers face: fundamental uncertainty about the entrepreneur's implementation cost, and strategic uncertainty due to potential coordination failures among consumers. We find that when both fundamental and strategic uncertainties are present, eliminating the fundamental uncertainty alone by revealing the implementation cost does not necessarily improve efficiency. Surprisingly, from an ex ante perspective, greater transparency makes the coordination among crowdfunding consumers less efficient, which makes the under-implementation problem even worse and thus impairs efficiency. Our findings send a message of caution against promoting greater transparency in the crowdfunding market.

We examine the relative importance of audit firm versus partner decision styles in key audit matter (KAM) reporting. Standard setters intended KAMs to increase the usefulness of the audit report by requiring the partner-led engagement team to disclose engagement-specific information about the most significant judgments they made during the audit. However, stakeholders expressed widespread concern that audit firms' longstanding efforts toward standardization would result in generic KAMs at the audit firm level and provide partners little opportunity or incentive for engagement-specific reporting. We evaluate this high-stakes tension between standard setters' goals for audit reporting and auditors' deep-rooted practices by leveraging data from the United Kingdom, which has required partner identification since 2009 and expanded audit reports since 2013. We find that clients sharing the same partner receive KAMs that are 10% more textually similar than clients with different partners. In contrast, clients sharing the same audit firm receive KAMs that are just 2% more textually similar than clients with different audit firms. This implies that partner decision styles are more important in influencing KAM outcomes than audit firm styles. Collectively, our results suggest that partners make unique KAM reporting judgments, countering concerns that audit firms' efforts toward standardization will yield boilerplate KAMs. This evidence extends the literature on expanded audit reporting and partner decision styles and provides valuable insights into a contemporary issue in audit regulation with broader implications for understanding dynamics within the profession.