Textile marketing: a status report

This exploratory study investigated the status of textile marketing in the United States by (a) examining the textile industry's use of effective marketing techniques, and (b) identifying common problems and needed improvements in textile marketing. The procedure followed these steps: (a) effective marketing techniques were identified, (b) interviews were conducted with nine textile executives and four individuals representing the United States textile industry at large, and (c) the respondents' statements about textile marketing practices were analysed for evidence of effective marketing techniques, common textile marketing problems and needed inprovements in textile marketing. The results indicated that only five of the thirteen respondents described textile firms that were using effective marketing techniques, but some textile firms were using effective marketing techniques and this should be an incentive for other textile firms. Several common problems and needed improvements in textile marketing were also identified. Because of the small sample size, the open-ended questions, and the subjective analysis of the respondents' statements, this study must be regarded as exploratory. However, representative statements from the respondents are presented and these statements are informative about textile marketing practices.     

How Do Quasi‐Random Option Grants Affect CEO Risk‐Taking?

We examine how an increase in stock option grants affects CEO risk‐taking. The overall net effect of option grants is theoretically ambiguous for risk‐averse CEOs. To overcome the endogeneity of option grants, we exploit institutional features of multiyear compensation plans, which generate two distinct types of variation in the timing of when large increases in new at‐the‐money options are granted. We find that, given average grant levels during our sample period, a 10% increase in new options granted leads to a 2.8% to 4.2% increase in equity volatility. This increase in risk is driven largely by increased leverage.     

Auditor evaluation of loss contingencies*

Abstract. This paper examines the probability judgments made by auditors for their financial statement footnote disclosure decisions and their audit report additional paragraph decisions in the presence of material loss contingencies. In the United States these judgments are governed by SFAS No. 5 and SAS No. 58. Two prior studies have reported inconsistent results pertaining to the degree of compliance of auditors with the judgment and decision-making process implied by SFAS No. 5. In contrast, SAS No. 58 has not previously been examined with respect to auditor compliance. Results from an experiment with 64 audit partners from six firms were consistent with the hypothesis that audit partners employ the same (compensatory) judgment process when making footnote disclosure decisions as when making additional paragraph decisions. This process led the partners to make judgments for the additional paragraph decision that were in accordance with SAS No. 58. In contrast, their judgments for the footnote disclosure decision were consistent with a decision theory model of auditor behavior rather than the noncompensatory process implied by SFAS No. 5. Additional aspects of the study pertain to the additional paragraph decision of auditors. Observed judgments for these decisions are consistent with the hypothesis that additional information is conveyed beyond that provided by only a footnote disclosure. This is contrary to some recent discussions of the standards. Résumé. Les auteurs étudient les jugements relatifs aux probabilités portés par les vérificateurs dans le cadre de leurs décisions relatives à la présentation des pertes éventuelles importantes sous forme de notes infrapaginales dans les états financiers ou de paragraphes supplémentaires dans le rapport des vérificateurs. Aux États-Unis, ces jugements sont régis par le SFAS n^o 5 et le SAS n^o 58. Deux études antérieures ont donné des résultats dissemblables en ce qui a trait à la mesure dans laquelle les vérificateurs se conforment au processus de jugement et de prise de décisions que suppose le SFAS n^o 5. Le respect par les vérificateurs des normes du SAS n^o 58 n'a fait, quant à lui, l'objet d'aucune analyse. Les résultats d'une expérience menée auprès de 64 associés reponsables de la vérification dans six cabinets ont confirmé l'hypothèse selon laquelle les associés responsables de la vérification utilisent le même processus de jugement (compensatoire) lorsqu'ils décident de présenter les pertes éventuelles sous forme de notes infrapaginales que lorsqu'ils optent pour les paragraphes supplémentaires. Ce processus a amené les associés à porter des jugements pour l'ajout de paragraphes supplémentaires conformes au SAS n^o 58. Par opposition, leurs jugements relatifs à la présentation sous forme de notes infrapaginales étaient conformes à un modèle de comportement du vérificateur inspiré de la théorie de la décision plutôt qu'au processus non compensatoire que suppose le SFAS n^o 5. D'autres aspects de l'étude portent sur la décision des vérificateurs relative à l'ajout de paragraphes supplémentaires. Les jugements observés relativement à cette décision sont conformes à l'hypothèse selon laquelle d'autres renseignements sont transmis, outre ceux qui sont fournis par voie de simples notes infrapaginales. Ces résultats viennent contredire certaines analyses récentes portant sur les normes.