The SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 101 to address its concern that firms were masking true performance by managing earnings using accelerated revenue recognition. Critics of this Accounting Bulletin stated that it would eliminate industry-accepted revenue recognition practices and reduce the quality of reported earnings. The FASB's revenue recognition discussions echo these concerns stating that revenues recorded prior to the completion of the earnings process contain value-relevant information about future performance. This paper investigates these two hypotheses using a sample of firms that accelerated revenue recognition prior to SAB No. 101 adoption (SAB 101 firms) and a matched set of firms that were unaffected by this regulation (unaffected firms). Our earnings distribution tests indicate that SAB 101 firms are more likely to meet earnings benchmarks. Specifically, we find that, in the pre-adoption period, SAB 101 firms report fewer small negative and more small positive earnings than they do in the post-adoption period and than do unaffected firms in the pre-adoption period; SAB 101 firms report fewer small negative and more small positive earnings changes in the pre-adoption period compared to the post-adoption period. We also document that SAB 101 firms are more likely to have weaker corporate governance and more likely to have financial covenants, providing them with greater incentives to manage earnings. However, we find that the association between earnings and future cash flows and between unexpected earnings and earnings announcement period returns were higher for SAB 101 firms than for unaffected firms in the preadoption period, indicating higher earnings informativeness for SAB 101 firms. These associations declined for SAB 101 firms in the post-adoption period, suggesting that SAB No. 101 caused a decline in earnings informativeness. Overall, our results suggest that, although the revenue recognition practices targeted by SAB No. 101 have been used by some firms to manage earnings, the regulation's prohibition of revenue recognition prior to completion of the earnings process, on average, results in less informative earnings since these unearned revenues provide value-relevant information.

Internal control regulation effectiveness remains controversial given the recent financial crisis. To address this issue we examine the financial reporting effects of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) internal control provisions. Exemptions from these provisions for banks with assets under $500 million and for non-US banks provides two unaffected control samples. Our difference-indifferences method suggests that FDICIA-mandated internal control requirements increased loan-loss provision validity, earnings persistence and cash-flow predictability and reduced benchmark-beating and accounting conservatism for affected versus unaffected banks. More pronounced effects in interim versus fourth quarters suggest that greater auditor presence substitutes for internal control regulation. AbstractInternal control regulation effectiveness remains controversial given the recent financial crisis. To address this issue we examine the financial reporting effects of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) internal control provisions. Exemptions from these provisions for banks with assets under $500 million and for non-U.S. banks provides two unaffected control samples. Our difference-indifferences method suggests that FDICIA-mandated internal control requirements increased loan-loss provision validity, earnings persistence and cash-flow predictability, and reduced benchmark-beating and accounting conservatism for affected versus unaffected banks. More pronounced effects in interim versus fourth quarters suggests that greater auditor presence substitutes for internal control regulation.

Internal control regulation effectiveness remains controversial given the recent financial crisis. To address this issue we examine the financial reporting effects of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) internal control provisions. Exemptions from these provisions for banks with assets under $500 million and for non-US banks provides two unaffected control samples. Our difference-indifferences method suggests that FDICIA-mandated internal control requirements increased loan-loss provision validity, earnings persistence and cash-flow predictability and reduced benchmark-beating and accounting conservatism for affected versus unaffected banks. More pronounced effects in interim versus fourth quarters suggest that greater auditor presence substitutes for internal control regulation. AbstractInternal control regulation effectiveness remains controversial given the recent financial crisis. To address this issue we examine the financial reporting effects of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) internal control provisions. Exemptions from these provisions for banks with assets under $500 million and for non-U.S. banks provides two unaffected control samples. Our difference-indifferences method suggests that FDICIA-mandated internal control requirements increased loan-loss provision validity, earnings persistence and cash-flow predictability, and reduced benchmark-beating and accounting conservatism for affected versus unaffected banks. More pronounced effects in interim versus fourth quarters suggests that greater auditor presence substitutes for internal control regulation.

This research examines whether the fair value of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) based on managerial inputs (Level 3) better reflects the cash flow and risk characteristics of the underlying assets than the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). Using mortgage servicing fees as a proxy for the underlying cash flows, we find that the valuation multiples for MSRs based on Level 3 inputs are more positively associated with the persistence of future servicing fees compared with the fair value of MSRs based on Level 2 inputs. We also document that only the valuation multiples based on Level 3 fair values are negatively associated with proxies for risk factors. Our results suggest that, although unobservable inputs are subject to managerial discretions, managers can generate higher quality fair value estimates than market inputs due to their information advantage, especially when the market for the underlying asset is inactive. ABSTRACTThis research studies one specific financial instrument -Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSRs) and examines whether the fair value of MSRs based on managerial inputs (Level 3) has financial reporting characteristics that differ from the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). Since fair value represents discounted future cash flows, we use future mortgage servicing fees as a proxy for future cash flows and measure whether the fair value of MSRs reflects the persistence of future servicing fees. We find that the fair value of MSRs based on managerial inputs (Level 3) better reflects the persistence of future servicing fees compared with the fair value of MSRs based on market inputs (Level 2). We also document that Level 3 fair values have a stronger association with proxies for default risk and prepayment risk. Consistent with conjectures made by Ryan (2008) and Laux and Leuz (2009), our results suggest that, although unobservable inputs are subject to managerial discretions, managers have the potential to generate higher quality fair value estimates than market inputs due to their information advantage, especially when the market for the underlying asset is inactive.