Industry expertise on corporate boards

Recent surveys indicate that industry expertise is the most sought-after director qualification. Yet evidence on the value of such expertise is limited. This paper shows that firms that are difficult for non-experts to monitor and advise are more likely to appoint industry expert directors. Such appointments also depend on the supply of industry-experienced candidates in the local director labor market. Board industry expertise reduces R&D-based real earnings management and increases R&D investments. The increase in R&D spending is value-enhancing: firms with industry expert directors receive more patents for the same level of R&D, their R&D spending is associated with lower volatility of future earnings, and their value is higher. Finally, industry expertise is associated with CEO termination and pay incentives that encourage R&D investments.     

Measuring R&D curtailment among short-horizon CEOs

I review evidence produced by prior literature on CEO horizon problems and show that prior empirical findings are correlated with the research design employed. I find that evidence of R&D curtailment by CEOs as they approach retirement stems predominantly from cross-sectional correlations between CEO age or tenure and R&D spending. Using a broad sample of CEOs of S&P 1500 firms, I identify two factors that confound the cross-sectional relationship of firm R&D spending on CEO age or tenure which can lead to spurious inferences regarding the CEO horizon problem. I find that tracking R&D spending by the same CEOs over time produces no evidence of R&D curtailment. These results have research design implications for future researchers investigating the impact of shortened CEO career horizons on investment myopia.     

CEO risk incentives and firm performance following R&D increases

In this study we analyze how CEO risk incentives affect the efficiency of research and development (R&D) investments. We examine a sample of 843 cases in which firms increase their R&D investments by an economically significant amount over the period of 1995–2006. We find that firms with higher sensitivity of CEO compensation portfolio value to stock volatility (vega) are more likely to have large increases in R&D investments. More importantly, we find that high-vega firms experience lower abnormal stock returns and lower operating performance compared to their low-vega counterparts following the R&D increases. Our main results hold in a variety of robustness tests. The results are consistent with the conjecture that high-vega compensation portfolios may induce managers to overinvest in inefficient R&D projects and therefore hurt firm performance.     

R&D capitalization and audit fees: Evidence from China

Our study investigates the association between capitalized R&D costs and audit fees and whether this association reflects the effect of earnings management. By exploring Chinese listed firms, we find that capitalized R&D costs are positively associated with audit fees, where such positive association holds for both the discretionary and nondiscretionary portions of capitalized R&D costs. Moreover, the positive association between the discretionary portion of capitalized R&D costs and audit fees is more pronounced for firms with stronger incentives to manipulate earnings. Overall, our findings imply that firms' reporting incentives affect how auditors react to clients' accounting choices. This in turn suggests that auditors believe some firms capitalize R&D to manipulate earnings, and the resulting earnings-management concerns lead them to charge higher fees.     

The size,concentration and evolution of corporate R&D spending in U.S. firms from 1976 to 2010: Evidence and implications

The use of research and development (R&D) spending as an empirical proxy for managerial discretion, information asymmetry and growth opportunities, is pervasive in empirical corporate finance research. Underlying this is the implicit assumption that firms choose levels of R&D to maximize value, given firm and industry characteristics. An alternative framework views the level of R&D spending as subject to idiosyncratic behavior as managers myopically manipulate R&D expenditures to meet short-term earnings goals. Using aggregate firm and industry level data, we find evidence consistent with the view that R&D is determined by firm and industry characteristics. Time invariant firm and industry fixed effects explain most of the cross-sectional variation in observed R&D spending, while time-varying factors like size, profitability, or market-to-book explain little of the cross-sectional variation. We find that R&D spending continues to grow faster than advertising and capital expenditures. We also find no evidence of managerial myopia as corporate aggregate R&D expenditures are growing faster than aggregate profitability and the number of firms that undertake R&D has increased over the period from 1976 to 2010.     

The effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of R&D spending

This paper investigates the effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of research and development (R&D) spending for a sample of Canadian hi-tech and biopharmaceutical firms. U.S. GAAP adopts an immediate expensing rule for all R&D spending except for software development costs for which technological feasibility has been established. Contrary to the U.S., Canadian and international standard setters recommend capitalization if development costs meet certain criteria. Because those criteria are largely based on management judgment, capitalization of R&D spending is an accounting choice that can be used for income manipulation or signaling.Using a logit model, we examine how the decision to capitalize R&D spending is influenced by the cross-listing status and several other key firm characteristics that are well documented in the accounting literature. We find that the probability of capitalizing R&D spending increases for cross-listed and non-cross-listed firms in the software industry. The probability of capitalizing R&D spending also increases for firms that are more leveraged, more mature, and have higher level of cash flows from operations. However, the probability of capitalizing R&D spending decreases for larger corporations, firms with more concentrated ownership and highly profitable firms. Overall our results indicate a preference for Canadian firms in the software industry to emulate U.S. accounting practices for R&D spending. They also suggest that firms use the decision to capitalize or expense R&D spending as an earning management tool to either meet debt covenants or to smooth income.     

The use of advertising activities to meet earnings benchmarks: evidence from monthly data

Using a unique database of monthly media advertising spending, we examine whether managers engage in real earnings management to meet quarterly financial reporting benchmarks. We extend prior literature by (1) separately analyzing advertising activities, allowing us to explore the possibility that managers could reduce or boost advertising to meet benchmarks; (2) analyzing actual activities as opposed to inferring them from reported expenses, which are also subject to accrual choices; (3) investigating the timing, within a quarter, of altered advertising spending; and (4) examining quarterly earnings benchmarks. We find that managers, on average, reduce advertising spending to avoid losses and earnings decreases. However, we also report that firms in the late stages of their life cycle increase advertising to meet earnings benchmarks. Finally, we find some evidence that firms increase advertising in the third month of a fiscal quarter and in the fourth quarter to beat prior year’s earnings.     

Earnings Warnings and CEO Welfare

Some CEOs decide voluntarily to issue a warning when they expect a negative earnings surprise. Prior research suggests that warnings contain incremental information beyond actual earnings; warning firms tend to experience permanent earnings decreases. This paper investigates whether compensation committees take warnings into account in setting CEO compensation. We find that warnings are significantly negatively (positively) associated with CEO bonus (option grants), suggesting that compensation committees adjust CEO compensation towards a more high‐powered structure after warnings. However, the sensitivity of bonus or option grants to earnings and stock returns is not affected except for bonus sensitivity to stock returns. We also find weak evidence of an increase in forced CEO turnover after warnings, accompanied by a significant increase in its sensitivity to stock returns. This benefits CEOs with higher ability but imposes more risk on other CEOs. These findings provide a partial explanation of why not every CEO facing a negative surprise decides to issue a warning. Our results are robust to various specifications. In particular, the impact of warnings on compensation appears invariant to the timing or the number of warnings. Overall, these findings suggest that the signal from warnings is used in determining CEO compensation and retention.     

The effect of R&D on future returns and earnings forecasts

Prior studies attribute the future excess returns of research and development activity (R&D) firms to either compensation for increased risk or to mispricing. We suggest a third explanation and show that neither the level of R&D investment nor the change in R&D investment explains future returns. Rather, the positive future returns that prior studies attribute to R&D investment are actually due to the component of the R&D firm??s realized return that is unrelated to R&D investment but present in R&D firms. Our results suggest that the excess returns of R&D firms are part of the larger value/growth anomaly. In addition, we show that while future earnings are positively associated with current R&D, errors in earnings expectations by investors and analysts are not related to R&D investment.     

Do company visits by institutional investors mitigate managerial myopia in R&D investment? Evidence from China

This study investigates the effects of company visits by institutional investors on managerial myopia about investment in research and development (R&D) in China. We find that company visits increase R&D spending. We also find that this increase is more pronounced for companies that have an entrenched chief executive officer (CEO), as indicated by longer CEO tenure and CEO duality, and for companies that face less intense market competition. The results further show that the increase in R&D spending is more pronounced for companies that have larger institutional ownership, are invested by long-term oriented institutions, are in the high-tech industry, and are state owned. These findings attest to the governance role of institutional investors.     

Using real options theory to explain patterns in the valuation of research and development expenditures

Real options theory posits that the value of the firm is a combination of the value generated by the assets in place and the value of the option to invest in the future. It is based on the idea that many decisions are difficult to reverse, and valuing the outcome of these decisions is more complicated than estimating the present value of future cash flows. R&D activities often generate real options due to the nature of these activities, and examining the valuation of R&D expenditures through the lens of real options theory can help explain differing results documented in both the R&D and value relevance of earnings and book value literatures. Numerous studies have documented that the stock market positively values R&D expenditures; however, recent work has raised questions about whether this positive relation occurs across firms reporting both profits and losses. Consistent with real options theory, I find that the negative coefficient on the R&D expenditures of profitable firms documented by prior studies only exists for low growth firms. In addition, for all R&D firms experiencing high sales growth, the market places a lower value on assets in place and a higher value on R&D expenditures.     

How do CEO incentives affect corporate tax planning and financial reporting of income taxes?

We examine how different accounting metrics used to evaluate CEO performance for annual bonuses affect the level of corporate tax planning as well as financial reporting for income taxes. We predict and find that firms using cash flow metrics report lower GAAP and cash effective tax rates (ETR) than firms using earnings metrics. We also find that firms using after-tax earnings metrics report lower GAAP ETRs but similar cash ETRs as firms using pre-tax earnings metrics. Further analyses show that firms using after-tax earnings metrics are more likely to designate foreign earnings as permanently reinvested and have lower discretionary reserves for tax uncertainty. Hence, it appears that both types of firms engage in similar levels of tax planning, but firms evaluating CEOs with after tax-earnings metrics incentivize different financial reporting choices.     

Stock market reactions to R&D cuts used to manage earnings

Prior research shows that stock returns are positive when firms meet or beat analysts' consensus earnings forecasts but negative when they miss. Past studies also show that managers frequently cut research and development (R&D) expenses in order to meet the consensus forecast. This study shows that the stock market penalizes this behavior and exacts a discount to the market reward if beating the forecast requires cutting R&D. However, it is only a partial discount and firms are still better off managing R&D expenditures in the short run. This study also shows that the reductions in R&D are likely temporary, as firms tend to increase R&D spending in the subsequent periods. Investors appear to recognize these short-term cuts and treat them similarly to accruals.     

Government R&D spending,fiscal instruments and corporate technological innovation

Using panel data from 242 cities in China, we examine the impact of government research and development (R&D) spending on corporate technological innovation. We find that listed firms located in cities with higher government R&D expenditures are more innovative than firms in other cities. Further, the positive effect of government R&D spending depends on fiscal instruments and factor allocation. Through subsidies and tax incentives, government R&D spending enhances firm innovation by alleviating financing constraints, improving employee creativity and ensuring efficient operations. We demonstrate that subsidies are more effective than taxes in spurring corporate technological innovation. We also show that the impact of government R&D spending is stronger for state-owned and high-tech enterprises than for other enterprises. Overall, our findings suggest that government R&D spending can substantially improve corporate technological innovation through fiscal instruments.     

Corporate social responsibility and classification shifting

This study examines the relation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm behavior to misclassify core expenses as special items in the income statement to inflate core earnings (i.e., classification shifting). We find that firms with good CSR performance (high-CSR firms) are less likely to engage in classification shifting than firms with poor CSR performance (low-CSR firms). We also find that high-CSR firms engage in less classification shifting even when they have greater incentives to meet earnings benchmarks. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that socially responsible firms behave ethically in financial reporting.     

Pension accrual management and research and development investment

This study investigates whether discretion in reporting pension expenses mitigates research and development (R&D) manipulation. Using a sample of Japanese manufacturing firms during the fiscal years 2001–2011 where both pension costs and R&D expenditures have large impacts on the bottom‐line earnings, I find that higher discount rates are associated with higher R&D investment among firms in which pension expenses could have large impacts on reported earnings. I also find that this relationship is found only among firms in high‐tech industries. These results suggest that pension accrual management substitutes costly R&D manipulation that may hurt future competitive edge.     

Intangible investment and the importance of firm-specific factors in the determination of earnings

We examine the effect of intangible investment on earnings noncommonality, defined as the extent to which a firm’s earnings performance is determined by firm-specific factors versus market and industry factors. Such insight is important in determining the appropriate weighting of these factors when forecasting a firm’s earnings. For a sample of US firms over the 1980–2006 period, we find that earnings noncommonality is positively associated with intangible asset intensity. This finding is consistent with the resource-based view of the firm, which posits that intangible investments allow firms to differentiate themselves economically from their rivals. We also find that separable recognized intangibles contribute more to earnings noncommonality than do either goodwill or R&D, perhaps because separable recognized intangibles are more likely to arise from contractual or legal rights and thus are less susceptible to expropriation by rival firms. Finally, we find that the positive impact of R&D on earnings noncommonality is significantly greater for those industries where patents and other legal mechanisms are most effective in protecting R&D. This result suggests that the success of intangible investment as a differentiation strategy depends largely on the effectiveness of mechanisms used to protect intangible investments from expropriation.     

R&D investments,capital expenditures,and earnings thresholds

Prior studies find that firms cut research and development (R&D) expense in response to earnings considerations. We extend this stream of research by documenting that firms narrowly achieving an earnings threshold also report unusually high capital expenditures. In addition, these firms’ total investments (R&D expense plus capital expenditures) do not vary in response to earnings thresholds, which suggests that, on average, reductions in R&D expense are offset by concurrent increases in capital expenditures. Lastly, our research design allows us to infer that the increased capital expenditures are largely R&D investments that are capitalized instead of non-R&D capital expenditures, suggesting that overall investments in R&D are relatively unchanged.     

The sharpest tool in the shed: IPO financial statement management of STEM vs. non-STEM firms

The valuation of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) firms has recently gained attention in the literature. Research has shown that, for valuation of STEM firms, accounting items such as sales growth and R&D expenditures matter more than bottom-line earnings. We examine whether, around the time of the IPO, STEM managers apply discretion over the accounting items most weighted by investors for their valuation. We find that investors tend to weigh sales growth and R&D more heavily than earnings in valuing STEM firms and that managers respond by managing those items rather than bottom-line earnings as in prior research. We find that future stock returns of STEM firms are negatively associated with sales management and not with abnormal accruals as for non-STEM firms. Our results illuminate the differential behavior of STEM managers and highlight the importance of a departure from the traditional IPO earnings management paradigm, which assumes that firms mainly manage their earnings.     

Firm Accrual Quality Following Restatements: A Signaling View

We consider whether and how firms improve their financial reporting credibility following a restatement by comparing two alternative views. The compliance view predicts that firms simply correct errors to comply with regulations; the signaling view predicts that improvements are broader to allow firms to signal higher reporting quality and thereby reduce information uncertainty. We find that accrual quality improves significantly following the restatement and that this improvement is observed for both earnings and non‐earnings error restatements. We also find that the extent of real earnings’ management decreases significantly. Further, we find that improvements in accrual quality are higher for firms with CEO turnover and higher incentives to improve, but lower for firms switching to an auditor of lower quality. Collectively, our findings suggest that firms signal improved reporting credibility following a restatement through higher accruals quality and lower real earnings management.