This paper examines the association between the cost of equity capital and levels of annual report and timely disclosure, and investor relations activities. We estimate the cost of equity capital using the classic dividend discount model. We find that the cost of equity capital decreases in the annual report disclosure level but increases in the level of timely disclosures. The latter result is contrary to theory but is consistent with managers’ claims that greater timely disclosures may increase the cost of equity capital, possibly through increased stock price volatility. We find no association between the cost of equity capital and the level of investor relations activities. We conclude that aggregating across different disclosure types results in a loss of information. Failing to include all disclosure types in regression analyses may lead to a correlated omitted variable bias and erroneous conclusions.

No abstract

Managers, investors, and researchers have a compelling interest in identifying a reliable empirical proxy for firm-specific cost of equity capital (r). In theory, deducing r is possible if the market's future cash flow forecast and current stock price are observable. Practically, deducing r is dependent on the ability to estimate the market's forecasted terminal value. We evaluate five methods of deducing firm-specific r (labeled rDIVPREM, rGLSPREM, rGORPREM, rOJNPREM, and rPEGPREM) that deal with this conundrum differently. The extent to which the estimates are associated with firm risk in a stable and meaningful manner is the basis for our assessment. We find that the rDIVPREM and rPEGPREM estimates are consistently and predictably related to risk, while the alternatives are not. Based on these results, we conclude that rDIVPREM and rPEGPREM dominate the alternatives.

No abstract

In this study I investigate the relation between information complexity and financial analysts' use of that information. I rank by complexity six tax-law changes enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and then examine analysts' explicit forecasts of effective tax rates around those changes. I show that analysts' revisions of their forecasts of effective tax rates appear to impound the effects of the less complex tax-law changes but not the more complex changes. Furthermore, as expected, if analysts assimilate less complex (but not more complex) information, the magnitude of the errors in their forecasts of effective tax rates increases with the effects of the more complex tax-law changes, but is unrelated to the less complex changes. Taken together, these results indicate that analysts assimilate less complex information to a greater extent than they assimilate more complex information. Either analysts' abilities to incorporate specific information into their forecasts is a decreasing function of the complexity of that information, or analysts choose not to assimilate complex information because the cost would exceed the benefit. In either case, complexity reduces analysts' use of information. These results demonstrate the importance of considering information attributes, such as complexity, when investigating why analysts' forecasts fail to incorporate all public information.

No abstract

No abstract

SYNOPSIS: The dramatic increase in the number of restatements filed over the past years has been attributed to numerous causes, including the complexity of the accounting standards, internal control reviews, changes in materiality thresholds, the overly conservative nature of auditors, earnings management, increased transaction complexity, and the second-guessing of management judgments by a variety of interested parties. However, empirical evidence on the underlying causes of restatements has been lacking. This study provides such evidence by directly addressing these questions: (1) To what causes do companies attribute restatements? (2) To what characteristics of the accounting standards do companies attribute restatements? Relying on the restating companies’ disclosures about restatements, we find that companies most often attribute restatements to basic internal company errors unrelated to any specific characteristic of the accounting standards. We also find that, for those restatements attributed to some characteristic of the accounting standards, the primary contributing factor is the lack of clarity in applying the standards and/or the proliferation of the literature because the original standard lacked clarity. These findings should interest standard setters and regulators addressing the proliferation of restatements and academics using restatements as proxies for constructs of interest in research.