Executive option exercises and financial misreporting

Several recent papers document that the magnitude of potential gains from stock-based compensation is positively related to the likelihood of misreporting. In a sample of firms that announce restatements of their financial statements from 1997 to 2002, we examine whether managers realize these potential gains occurring from their accounting choices. After controlling for diversification needs and stock price impact, we find no significant evidence of higher option exercises by executives in the misreported years. However, for firms that are more likely to have made deliberate aggressive accounting choices, we find significant evidence of higher option exercises. For these firms, option exercises are higher by 20–60% in comparison to industry and size matched nonrestating firms. Options exercises by executives are also increasing in the magnitude of the restatement as captured by the effect of the restatement on net income. These higher option exercises tend to be more pervasive and are not just confined to the CEO and CFO of the firm.     

Institutional ownership and monitoring: Evidence from financial misreporting

We find that the likelihood and severity of financial misreporting is positively related to aggregate institutional ownership and this effect can be largely attributed to ownership by institutions with short investment horizons — those with little incentive to engage in costly monitoring of firm activities and precisely those that sell at the announcement of a restatement. We also find that the concentration of holdings by these institutions offsets this effect, which suggests concentrated ownership induces greater monitoring and mitigates the incentives for firms to misreport. Our results suggest that any link between myopic firm decision making and institutional ownership may be related to the nature of institutional monitoring.     

Chief financial officer overconfidence and stock price crash risk

Numerous studies have shown the prevalence of overconfidence among Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). Surprisingly, the real effect of CFO overconfidence is under-researched. Using data from a large sample of US-listed firms over the period 1993–2019 and adopting an eclectic theoretical approach, we find that overconfident CFOs are more likely to increase stock price crash risk than non-overconfident CFOs through risk-taking and bad news hoarding. These findings pass a series of robustness tests. Furthermore, departing from most overconfident studies that merely examine one type of top managers (i.e., Chief Executive Officer (CEO)), we consider the influence of CEO and CFO overconfidence jointly. Interestingly, we find that CFO overconfidence outweighs CEO overconfidence in influencing stock price crash risk. Moreover, the overconfidence effect is intensified when overconfident CFOs collaborate with overconfident CEOs, thus raising stock price crash risk. However, stronger governance and a transparent information environment constrain overconfident CFOs' effect on stock price crash risk. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of CFO overconfidence in determining stock return tail risks.     

AIA submission: CEO overconfidence and the incidence of financial restatement

The role of the Chief Executive Officer (hereafter, CEO) in financial reporting is almost universally assumed to be significant (Carcello, Neal, Palmrose & Scholz, 2011; Cohen, Krishnamoorthy, & Wright, 2002; Connelly, 2005; Paredes, 2004). While academics and regulators agree that the CEO can have a large impact on financial reporting decisions, there is very little research on how individual CEO characteristics actually influence the financial reporting process. This paper examines the impact of one such CEO characteristic – CEO overconfidence – on the incidence of financial restatement. We utilize a matched-pairs research design consisting of 75 restatement firms (obtained through the GAO restatement sample) and a set of 75 non-restatement control firms. Using an options-based measure of CEO overconfidence developed by Malmendier and Tate (2008), we document a statistically significant positive relation between CEO overconfidence and financial statement restatement.     

The joint influence of Sarbanes-Oxley and FAS123R on financial misreporting

Prior research reports that a manager's equity risk-taking incentive (vega) is positively associated with financial misreporting. FAS 123R led to a significant decrease in vega while SOX increased the cost of financial misreporting. Consistent with the original intent of the legislation, we find that SOX contributed to significant decreases in both fraud restatements and AAERs. Importantly, our results suggest that the SOX-induced decreases in fraud restatements and AAERs have endured to more recent years. On the other hand, while we find evidence that equity-incentive-motivated financial misreporting ceased to exist in the immediate years after FAS 123R, we also find that this was only temporary. In particular, we find strong evidence of a significantly positive association between vega and accrual misreporting in more recent years.     

Accounting complexity, misreporting, and the consequences of misreporting

I examine whether accounting complexity in the area of revenue recognition increases the probability of restating reported revenue. I measure revenue recognition complexity using the number of words and recognition methods from the revenue recognition disclosure in the 10-K and a factor score based on the number of words and methods. Tests reveal that revenue recognition complexity increases the probability of revenue restatements, and these restatements are the result of both intentional and unintentional misreporting. Furthermore, complexity moderates the consequences of restatement—lower incidence of AAERs, less negative restatement announcement returns, and lower subsequent CEO turnover—suggesting that stakeholders of the firm consider accounting complexity when responding to misreporting.     

Executive compensation and competition in the banking and financial sectors

This paper studies the effect of product market competition on the compensation packages that firms offer to their executives. We use a panel of US executives in the 1990s and exploit two deregulation episodes in the banking and financial sectors as quasi-natural experiments. We provide difference-in-differences estimates of their effect on (1) total pay, (2) estimated fixed pay and performance-pay sensitivities, and (3) the sensitivity of stock option grants. Our results indicate that the deregulations substantially changed the level and structure of compensation: the variable components of pay increased along with performance-pay sensitivities and, at the same time, the fixed component of pay fell. The overall effect on total pay was small.     

The impact of anti-corruption measures and risk effects on equity incentives and financial misreporting in China

This study examines the effects of anti-corruption and equity incentive risk on financial misreporting in the context of China’s unique corporate ownership structure and governance regime. Using a sample comprising 2,708 cases of financial restatement over the 2007–2017 period. Our key findings suggest that managers’ shareholdings are significantly and positively associated with their firms’ financial misreporting, and certain equity risk factors dramatically alter Chinese corporate governance. Furthermore, managers’ motivation to misreport is significantly more pronounced in non–state owned enterprises (non-SOEs), suggesting that equity incentive risk effects mitigate the “absence of ownership” problem believed to affect SOEs. Managers in highly competitive industries and firms with low institutional ownership are found to be highly motivated to misreport performance.     

Attitude,Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting

Audit standards around the world describe three factors, known together as the fraud triangle, that purportedly predict the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting ( and ). The first two factors, opportunity and incentive/pressure, are largely accepted as being associated with fraud (,  and ), whereas the third factor, attitude/rationalization, remains a relative mystery ( and ). I conducted an experiment in which participants were provided the opportunity and motivation to misreport, in order to explore attitude and rationalization in greater detail. As expected, I found that participants whose attitude favors misreporting and individuals who are higher in Machiavellianism are both more likely to misreport; and participants who misreport experience negative emotions (affect). Of concern, however, is that higher Machiavellians who misreport feel significantly less guilt than others who misreport. When I changed the experimental setting and asked participants to think about common rationalizations they may use, in an attempt to reduce rationalizing before they made their reporting decision, significantly fewer participants misreported; while those who still misreported rationalized to an even greater extent. Implications for future research and fraud detection and prevention are discussed.     

Corporate misreporting and bank loan contracting

This paper is the first to study the effect of financial restatement on bank loan contracting. Compared with loans initiated before restatement, loans initiated after restatement have significantly higher spreads, shorter maturities, higher likelihood of being secured, and more covenant restrictions. The increase in loan spread is significantly larger for fraudulent restating firms than other restating firms. We also find that after restatement, the number of lenders per loan declines and firms pay higher upfront and annual fees. These results are consistent with banks using tighter loan contract terms to overcome risk and information problems arising from financial restatements.     

CEO overconfidence and IRS attention

We examine the likelihood that the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in its enforcement role, will accord particular attention to firms that are managed by CEOs who exhibit over-confidence, given that such CEOs may be more aggressive in their tax policies and strategies. Using data from 7757 firms, we find that this is indeed the case. Such attention is even more pronounced in the instance of overconfident CEOs whose firms are financially constrained and/or financially distressed. We also find that the IRS has augmented its audit processes to give more attention to overconfident CEOs during and post financial crisis. This may be due to the increased vulnerability of their firms to external shocks, which consequently increases the incentives to embark on tax avoidance strategies, value-destroying investments, and/or highly biased financial reporting (and forecasting responses) to tax authorities. Our results are robust after accounting for the possibility of endogeneity and using a wide range of specifications, measures, and econometric models.     

CEO overconfidence and dividend policy

We develop a model of the dynamic interaction between CEO overconfidence and dividend policy. The model shows that an overconfident CEO views external financing as costly and hence builds financial slack for future investment needs by lowering the current dividend payout. Consistent with the main prediction, we find that the level of dividend payout is about one-sixth lower in firms managed by CEOs who are more likely to be overconfident. We document that this reduction in dividends associated with CEO overconfidence is greater in firms with lower growth opportunities and lower cash flow. We also show that the magnitude of the positive market reaction to a dividend-increase announcement is higher for firms with greater uncertainty about CEO overconfidence.     

The economics of misreporting and the role of public scrutiny

This paper examines how the ex ante level of public scrutiny influences a manager's subsequent decision to misreport. The conventional wisdom is that high levels of public scrutiny facilitate monitoring, suggesting a negative relation between scrutiny and misreporting. However, public scrutiny also increases the weight that investors place on earnings in valuing the firm. This in turn increases the benefit of misreporting, suggesting a positive relation. We formalize these two countervailing forces–“monitoring” and “valuation”–in the context of a parsimonious model of misreporting. We show that the combination of these two forces leads to a unimodal relation. Specifically, as the level of public scrutiny increases, misreporting first increases, reaches a peak, and then decreases. We find evidence of such a relation across multiple empirical measures of misreporting, multiple measures of public scrutiny, and multiple research designs.     

CEO overconfidence and the level of short-selling activity

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - This study examines the impact of CEO overconfidence on the level of short-selling activity, as proxied by the short interest ratio. This research...     

Financial misreporting and peer firms' operational efficiency

We investigate the impact of financial misreporting on peer firms’ operational efficiency, defined as a firm’s efficiency in converting investments into revenues. We find that, on average, peers’ operational efficiency declines after rival firms misstate their financial performance. However, we also find that the impact of financial misreporting is not homogeneous across peer firms. The negative effect is mainly driven by non‐misstating firms that had high performance. For firms that had lower past performance, the negative effect is significantly weaker, suggesting that the perceived competition induced by misreporting has a more positive effect. In addition, we document that the effect of misreporting is influenced by peer firms’ external financing need, industry leadership status and information environment.     

CEO overconfidence and the tone of press release

This paper examines how CEO overconfidence affects the tone of press releases. Using option-based proxies for CEO overconfidence, I find that over the 2000–2018 period, the press releases issued by firms with overconfident CEOs have more positive tone and receive more positive market reactions. The relation between CEO overconfidence and the tone of press releases is stronger among firms with good operating performance and concentrated in investment-related news but is insignificant for earnings news. These findings suggest that CEO overconfidence leads to biases in press releases.     

CEO overconfidence and corporate cash holdings

This study proposes chief executive officer (CEO) overconfidence to be an alternative explanation to corporate cash holdings. We find positive effects of CEO overconfidence on the level of cash holdings and the value of cash, which are mainly due to the investment environments faced by firms. The positive effects of CEO overconfidence on cash holdings level and cash value are barely affected by the traditional motives of cash holdings based on trade-off and agency theories. The analysis of cash sources further explains why firms with overconfident CEOs can aggressively pursue risky investments and maintain large cash holdings at the same time. Although the prior literature indicates that overconfident CEOs tend to avoid equity issues for their capital investments, the contribution to cash savings from equity is higher than that from debt. Additional robustness tests also support our empirical findings.     

CEO overconfidence and bank loan contracting

In this paper, we examine the effect of managerial overconfidence on bank loan spreads. Our theoretical model and empirical results support that firms with highly overconfident CEOs have lower loan spreads and that the reducing effect of these CEOs on the spread is more pronounced when the loan contracts have collateral or covenants. Unlike firms with highly overconfident CEOs, firms with moderately overconfident CEOs do not receive lower loan spreads. We perform various tests to alleviate the concerns about endogeneity, and the results are robust. The results are consistent with the idea that highly overconfident CEOs are more willing to pledge collateral and accept covenants in exchange for a reduction in their loan rate.     

CEO overconfidence and corporate debt maturity

This paper extends our knowledge of corporate debt maturity structure by examining whether and to what extent overconfident CEOs affect maturity decisions. Consistent with a demand side story, we find that firms with overconfident CEOs tend to adopt a shorter debt maturity structure by using a higher proportion of short-term debt (due within 12 months). This behavior of overconfident CEOs is not deterred by the high liquidity risk associated with such a financing strategy. Our demand side explanation remains robust even after considering six possible alternative drivers including a competing supply side explanation (in which creditors are reluctant to extend long-term debt to overconfident CEOs).     

An empirical evaluation of the overconfidence hypothesis

Recently, several behavioral finance models based on the overconfidence hypothesis have been proposed to explain anomalous findings, including a short-term continuation (momentum) and a long-term reversal in stock returns. We characterize the overconfidence hypothesis by the following four testable implications: First, if investors are overconfident, they overreact to private information and underreact to public information. Second, market gains make overconfident investors trade more aggressively in subsequent periods. Third, excessive trading of overconfident investors in securities markets contributes to the observed excessive volatility. Fourth, overconfident investors underestimate risk and trade more in riskier securities. To document the presence of overconfidence in financial markets, we empirically evaluate these four hypotheses using aggregate data. Overall, we find empirical evidence in support of the four hypotheses.