Antti Fredriksson, David Hay, Jukka Karjalainen, Arpine Maghakyan, Lasse Niemi
{"title":"Is professional exam performance associated with career success for Big 4 auditors? Evidence on gender differences","authors":"Antti Fredriksson, David Hay, Jukka Karjalainen, Arpine Maghakyan, Lasse Niemi","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13035","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examines whether better performance on the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exam is associated with an auditor's career success and whether any relation differs based on gender. Our study adds to prior studies on the career development of auditors by showing that the auditor's performance on the exam predicts success during the auditor's career. Although there is little difference in the average CPA exam scores of male versus female auditors, we document gender differences in the relation between performance on the CPA exam and career success. Male auditors who pass the exam with superior results receive higher annual compensation than those with weaker results. They are also more likely to become partners in Big 4 accounting firms and have larger client portfolios. For female auditors, we find weaker or no association between CPA exam scores and compensation or other indicators of career success. Our path analysis shows that the mechanisms underlying career success work differently for men and women. CPA exam scores of male auditors have a direct effect on compensation and an indirect (mediating) effect through promotion to partner and client portfolio size. However, for female auditors, exam scores have no effect on promotion to partner or client portfolio size, and exam scores have a much smaller effect on compensation. Our findings suggest that CPA exam scores translate into career success for male auditors but not for female auditors.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1243-1270"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.13035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144207084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Qiang Cheng, Brian Yutao Wang, Holly Yang, Zheyuan Zhang
{"title":"How do analysts affect corporate innovation? Evidence from site visits","authors":"Qiang Cheng, Brian Yutao Wang, Holly Yang, Zheyuan Zhang","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13032","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While prior studies have examined whether financial analysts affect corporate innovation, there is little research on the mechanism through which this occurs. In this paper, we examine whether and how analysts' questions about innovation during site visits affect corporate innovation. Using a sample of corporate site visits in China, we find that when analysts ask questions about innovation during site visits, firms invest more in R&D in the future. Consistent with knowledge diffusion across firms, this association is stronger when analysts cover more firms in the same industry, when firms share similar technologies as industry peers, and when an innovation-expert analyst is present at site visits. We also find that analysts' questions about innovation during site visits are positively associated with the quantity and quality of firms' patent applications in the future. Overall, we provide evidence that analysts can affect corporate innovation through their questions about firms' innovation activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 3","pages":"1528-1556"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145013322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Winning is not enough: Changing landscapes of earnings surprises and the market reaction","authors":"John C. Heater, Ye Liu, Qin Tan, Frank Zhang","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13034","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We document strikingly opposite time-series patterns of analyst forecast errors (FEs) and associated market reactions, illustrating that analyst forecasts have become a less useful benchmark of the market's earnings expectations in recent years. The mean FE has increased from negative one to two cents in the 1990s to positive one to two cents in the 2010s, whereas average earnings announcement returns have declined from 0.30% in the 1990s to −0.30% in the 2010s, turning negative in the past 17 years. Underlying the time-series pattern of increasing FEs is a secular trend where firms move away from just meeting or beating, to which the market reaction has become increasingly negative, toward a large beat, while the frequency of meeting or beating the consensus analyst forecast remains stable during the same period. We develop a parsimonious predictive model of earnings surprises based on peer and past analysts' FEs and find that our predicted FE closely mirrors reported FE, with the average value hovering around one to two cents in most years of the past two decades. The market reaction to “around zero” unexpected FE (FE minus predicted FE) is indistinguishable from zero over time, suggesting that our model serves as a good benchmark of the market's expectation. Our evidence has broad implications for appropriate earnings benchmarking, for the disappearing discontinuity of the earnings surprise distribution around zero, for earnings management to beat analysts' forecasts, for empirical designs when examining the earnings-return relation, and for the disappearing earnings announcement premium.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1212-1242"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"How do institutional investors facilitate reporting comparability? Evidence from common institutional ownership in the United States","authors":"Xuanbo Li, Yun Lou, Rencheng Wang, Kaitang Zhou","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13028","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We examine how common institutional investors (CIIs) facilitate the financial reporting comparability (FRC) of US firms. Common ownership increases FRC of firms that are directly owned by CIIs (via a direct effect) and has positive spillover effects on other firms in the same industry. We find spillover effects in two types of firms: (1) those that are commonly owned by different institutional investors but are connected through common firms, and (2) those that do not have any common ownership. These results suggest that the effect of common ownership goes beyond commonly owned firms and extends to non-commonly owned firms. Furthermore, we find two mechanisms for the direct and spillover effects of common ownership on reporting comparability: firms' hiring of common auditors and their adoption of similar accounting practices. Overall, we provide comprehensive evidence on how common institutional ownership benefits the comparability of financial reporting in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1176-1211"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Investor overreactions to transnational peer firm earnings: The role of accounting standards","authors":"Manuel Herkenhoff, Martin Nienhaus","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13038","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study finds that accounting standards play an important role in cross-border investor reactions to peer firm earnings. Specifically, we document that when international peer firms report under the same accounting standards, investors overreact to peer firms' earnings announcements. Using a sample of 35,116 firm-pair-years from 51 countries between 2000 and 2010, we show that heightened information transfers for international same-standard firms are followed by predictable price reversals when investors observe own-firm earnings. However, overreactions are not present for international firm-pairs that follow different accounting standards. While we find that institutional investors learn over time, overreactions do not decline among retail investors. Additional tests suggest that overreactions cause significant excess volatility, which results in economically significant costs. Collectively, our findings document an unintended consequence of financial reporting harmonization in the form of increased investor overreactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1145-1175"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.13038","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144207078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tracy Gu, Kai Wai Hui, Yingzhen Jiang, Dan A. Simunic
{"title":"Federal judge ideology and the going-concern reporting incentives of Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors","authors":"Tracy Gu, Kai Wai Hui, Yingzhen Jiang, Dan A. Simunic","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13025","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We analyze whether and how the perceived federal-level legal liability linked to federal judge ideology is associated with the likelihood of firms receiving going-concern modified audit opinions and analyze the differential effects on Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors. We find that Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors converge in their going-concern reporting decisions in circuits with more liberal judges. This convergence is caused by the greater effect of judge ideology on non–Big 4 auditors. Furthermore, we empirically examine the association between federal judge ideology and actual lawsuits against auditors and find that judge ideology has a greater impact on lawsuit likelihood for non–Big 4 auditors for the restating companies. When auditors are sued, both the payout likelihood and amount are greater in circuits with more liberal judges, with the effect being more pronounced for non–Big 4 auditors. This study provides evidence on how the perceived exposure to a gross negligence legal standard shapes auditors' going-concern reporting incentives for the two tiers of auditors in the market. It also adds to the literature on auditor litigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1106-1144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144207014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"CAR Ad Hoc Reviewers 2024 / RCC Réviseurs ad hoc 2024","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13029","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 1","pages":"E1-E10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143645669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Can we explain managerial non-answers during conference call Q&As?","authors":"Matthew Bamber, Pier-Luc Nappert","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13030","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Management teams often avoid answering questions during conference call question and answer sessions (Q&As). Viewing this as an information asymmetry issue, accounting scholars have suggested that this behavior is ill-advised and that non-answers signal to investors the suppression of bad news. In this article, we demonstrate that this argument lacks nuance. Instead, we argue that answers and non-answers necessarily coexist and are codependent. Our contribution stems from our social interactionist lens, whereby we draw on interdisciplinary perspectives of workplace silence to make sense of our data. We propose three explanations for managerial non-answers, namely that they are used (1) defensively, (2) reflectively, and (3) negotiatively. Despite the seeming complexity, analysts claim they can make sense of what managers are able to say in this forum, and by extension, what they do (or perhaps, can) not. From here, we argue that analysts are socialized to managerial non-answers. Despite this, there is general concern that investors allow an innate fear of “silence” to prejudice their judgment of non-answers. Thus, we highlight a communication gap between management, intermediary, and investor. On the one hand, this implies a source of market inefficiency, but on the other it points toward a source of potential value in sell-side analyst work, specifically, their experience and expertise in social interaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1079-1105"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.13030","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bogging down investors: An unintended consequence of litigation risk","authors":"Siwen Fu, Ke Wang, Liandong Zhang, Liu Zheng","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13027","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Securities litigation risk is a well-recognized yet underexplored source of financial reporting complexity or unreadability. This study examines the effect of litigation risk on the readability of corporate financial reports. The 1999 Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGI) court ruling unexpectedly reduced litigation risk for firms within the Ninth Circuit Court's jurisdiction. Using a difference-in-differences design centered on the SGI court ruling, we find that, while the readability of financial reports generally declines over the sample period, treated firms in the Ninth Circuit experience a comparatively smaller decline in readability than control firms in other states after the ruling. Put differently, treated firms experience a relative improvement in reporting readability following the ruling. This effect is concentrated among firms prone to securities litigation and those with greater external financing needs, but it is muted for firms engaging in earnings management. Furthermore, improved reporting readability among treated firms can be partially attributed to alleviated concerns about the adequacy of cautionary language, as evidenced by a significant decrease in negative forward-looking statements, particularly risk-related ones. Collectively, our findings suggest that securities litigation risk contributes to reduced readability in financial reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1045-1078"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1911-3846.13027","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mary Cowx, Jennifer L. Glenn, Patrick Kielty, Sean T. McGuire
{"title":"How do hedge fund activists use and affect financial reporting of income taxes? Evidence from the valuation allowance for deferred tax assets","authors":"Mary Cowx, Jennifer L. Glenn, Patrick Kielty, Sean T. McGuire","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.13031","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study uses valuation allowances (VAs) for deferred tax assets to examine whether hedge fund activists (HFAs) use and affect financial reporting of income taxes. Specifically, we investigate whether HFAs target firms with VAs and whether target firms are more likely to release VAs post-intervention. We find that the existence, magnitude, and increases in VAs increase the marginal probability that HFAs will target a firm by between 12% and 24%. We also find that target firms are 4.6% more likely to release VAs following the intervention, and this effect persists for up to 2 years. Releases of VAs appear to stem from implemented tax avoidance strategies and changes in financial reporting of income taxes rather than real changes in operating performance or earnings management. Overall, HFAs appear to understand the interplay between tax planning and financial reporting of income taxes and use both to unlock value in target firms.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"1013-1044"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144206517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}