團隊

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.

Although federal judges are the ultimate arbiters of insider trading enforcement, the role of their political ideology in insider trading is unclear. Using the partisanship of judges’ nominating presidents to measure judge ideology, we first document that liberal judges are associated with heavier penalties in insider trading lawsuits than conservative judges. Next, we find that firms located in circuits with more liberal judges have fewer opportunistic insider sales. Cross-sectional analyses show that this deterrent effect is stronger when managers face a higher risk of insider trading lawsuits. Finally, we find that the SEC considers judges’ ideology when selecting litigation forums.

We study contingencies written in firms’ material product market contracts, focusing on the theoretical prediction of uncertainty as an important determinant. We identify contract contingencies from firms’ public regulatory filings and examine the effects of general business uncertainty and specific innovation-related uncertainty. To enhance causal inference, we utilize two major business shocks (i.e., the 2008 Financial Crisis and the COVID pandemic) and the diffusion of 29 disruptive innovation shocks (Bloom et al. 2021). We also explore the effects of re-negotiation costs and writing costs. Overall, our empirical results are consistent with predictions from dynamic models of incomplete contracting.

This study examines the properties of innovation disclosures contained in new product announcements, a form of voluntary, nonfinancial disclosure. We analyze these properties using a novel, text-based measure of the extent of product innovation disclosed in new product announcements. We find that stock prices react more positively to announcements with more extensive innovation disclosure. In our main analyses, we first find that a higher level of innovation disclosure predicts a greater increase in future sales. We further find that this predictive ability falls when managers have stronger incentives to maximize their wealth and when the corporate governance structure and customers’ bargaining power weaken. Our research enhances the understanding of the properties of managerial voluntary, nonfinancial disclosures and contributes a text-based measure of innovation that captures managerial assessment of the extent of product innovation. This new measure is more generalizable and incrementally informative for firm value and future performance than conventional innovation measures that depend on the existence of patents or research and development expenses.