Equity Risk Incentives and Corporate Tax Aggressiveness

This study examines equity risk incentives as one determinant of corporate tax aggressiveness. Prior research finds that equity risk incentives motivate managers to make risky investment and financing decisions, since risky activities increase stock return volatility and the value of stock option portfolios. Aggressive tax strategies involve significant uncertainty and can impose costs on both firms and managers. As a result, managers must be incentivized to engage in risky tax avoidance that is expected to generate net benefits for the firm and its shareholders. We predict that equity risk incentives motivate managers to undertake risky tax strategies. Consistent with this prediction, we find that larger equity risk incentives are associated with greater tax risk and the magnitude of this effect is economically significant. Our results are robust across four measures of tax risk, but do not vary across several proxies for strength of corporate governance. We conclude that equity risk incentives are a significant determinant of corporate tax aggressiveness.     

Why Consistency of Accounting Standards Matters: A Contribution to the Rules-Versus-Principles Debate in Financial Reporting

A cross-firm consistent application of accounting standards is sought in all major accounting regimes. Since many transactions and events are only vaguely or not explicitly addressed in the standards managers must often use judgment when applying accounting standards to particular transactions or events. This analysis concludes that a consistent application of accounting standards can only be ensured if the accounting standards themselves are internally consistent. By contrast, inconsistent standards—in the absence of clear guidance—permit managers to (more or less arbitrarily) choose between different accounting methods. Moreover, it is found that a consistent application presupposes the existence of specific guidance ('rules') in order to frame management's judgment. It is argued that the reliance on principles only—as requested by many in the accounting literature—fails to ensure a consistent application because it allows management to exert judgment differently in identical cases. The assessment includes arguments and propositions from the international discussion in the accounting literature and also refers to other related fields of research, such as legal theory.     

An Open Mind Wants More: Opinion Strength and the Desire for Genetically Modified Food Labeling Policy

Two opposing viewpoints exist in the literature; some suggest consumers are unconcerned and do not desire any genetically modified labeling, while others indicate the opposite. The mixed results may be because consumers make finer distinctions than surveys have called for, and have evaluation schemes sensitive to information about the benefits and risks associated with genetically modified foods. We find consumers are quite nuanced in their preferences for genetically modified labeling policy. Unexpectedly, consumers with less‐defined views desire mandatory labeling of the most stringent type, while consumers with stronger viewpoints (either pro‐ or con‐genetically modified) are more relaxed in their labeling requirements.     

The Use of a Statement of Changes in Financial Position to Interpret Financial Data: An Empirical Investigation

This study provides empirical evidence on the use of a statement of changes in financial position by financial analysts to interpret and make judgments on information contained in annual reports. Analysts were required to answer five questions developed from claims made in a professional accounting standard about the purpose of the statement of changes in financial position. The results indicate that the statement of changes in financial position does not generally enhance financial analysis.