中文目錄
1.語言共性與賣方信息生產(chǎn)
2.股東至上轉(zhuǎn)向利益相關(guān)者導(dǎo)向
3.審計市場競爭的陰暗面
4.地理臨近與創(chuàng)新管理
5.人工智能改善審計過程了么
6.風(fēng)險信息披露的實際影響

1.Language Commonality and Sell-Side Information Production(MS2022)

I study the effects of language commonality (i.e., sharing a native language) on information production in financial markets. Using a hand-collected data set on the prevalent dialects for 2,091 cities (counties) in China, I identify the effects of language commonality separately from those of shared hometown and geographic proximity. In in-sample tests, language commonality between analysts and CEOs increases the return of trading on analysts’ recommendations by 5.5%. The results mainly stem from less intelligible dialects. Broadly speaking, language commonality can alleviate communication frictions when nonnative languages are used in professional settings.

2.From a shareholder to stakeholder orientation: Evidence from the analyses of CEO dismissal in large U.S. firms(SMJ2022)

The post-Enron era is marked with growing discourse of stakeholders, sustainability, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Yet, commentators debate whether U.S. corporations have indeed moved toward a stakeholder orientation, given the difficulties in measuring such a shift. We assess this shift by examining corporate governance practices, especially the prevalence of shareholder- and stakeholder-oriented practices in chief executive officer (CEO) dismissals. Using data on large firms in 1980–2015, we found that, before the 2000s, CEOs were less heavily penalized for poor firm performance when they demonstrated a shareholder orientation by downsizing and refocusing the corporation and more heavily penalized for CSR activity. This trend, however, reversed after the early 2000s. This article provides evidence of the evolution of U.S. firms' governance practices from a shareholder toward stakeholder orientation.

3.The Dark Side of Audit Market Competition(JAE-Online)

This paper examines the relation between audit market competition and audit quality. We use the staggered introduction of bullet trains in different Chinese cities as shocks to travel time between audit clients and prospective audit firms, which increases the threat of competition for incumbent audit firms. The inception of bullet train connectivity leads to a 4.5 percentage point (pp) increase in the probability of GAAP violations and a 1.7 pp decrease in the probability of modified audit opinions for clients headquartered in connected cities. Bullet train connectivity is also followed by a 1.6 pp decrease in income-decreasing audit adjustments but no change in income-increasing audit adjustments. The negative relation between bullet train connectivity and audit quality is 1) stronger when bullet trains put greater competitive pressure on incumbent auditors and 2) weaker when clients demand high audit quality. Our paper provides plausibly causal evidence that competition lowers audit quality.

4.Proximity and the Management of Innovation(MS-Online)

We study the effect of proximity to corporate headquarters on the productivity of inventors and research and development (R&D) facilities. Distant inventors and R&D facilities are less productive, and plausibly exogenous reductions in the travel time from these inventors or facilities to headquarters increase their productivity and creativity. We hypothesize that these improvements in the management of innovation production occur because proximity improves monitoring, managerial ability to provide direction, relationship building that supports creativity, and information exchange, including advice from headquarters. Consequently, our results suggest that proximity can help managers balance both exploration and exploitation when overseeing innovation. Naturally, these results then beg the question of why firms do not locate all inventors and R&D facilities in close proximity to headquarters. We find that distant inventors and R&D facilities are located in areas with better general economic indicators, and especially more favorable tax rates, than headquarters, suggesting firms balance these benefits against the benefits of proximity when locating innovation production.

5.Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process(RAS-Online)

How does artificial intelligence (AI) impact audit quality and efficiency? We explore this question by leveraging a unique dataset of more than 310,000 detailed individual resumes for the 36 largest audit firms to identify audit firms’ employment of AI workers. We provide a first look into the AI workforce within the auditing sector. AI workers tend to be male and relatively young and hold mostly but not exclusively technical degrees. Importantly, AI is a centralized function within the firm, with workers concentrating in a handful of teams and geographic locations. Our results show that investing in AI helps improve audit quality, reduces fees, and ultimately displaces human auditors, although the effect on labor takes several years to materialize. Specifically, a one-standard-deviation change in recent AI investments is associated with a 5.0% reduction in the likelihood of an audit restatement, a 0.9% drop in audit fees, and a reduction in the number of accounting employees that reaches 3.6% after three years and 7.1% after four years. Our empirical analyses are supported by in-depth interviews with 17 audit partners representing the eight largest U.S. public accounting firms, which show that (1) AI is developed centrally; (2) AI is widely used in audit; and (3) the primary goal for using AI in audit is improved quality, followed by efficiency.

6.The real effects of risk disclosures（RAS-Online）

We examine the economic impacts of risk disclosures in accounting reports on the real decisions made by information senders (i.e., managers of the disclosing firms). In so doing, we exploit the SEC rule enacted in 2010 regarding climate change risk (CCR) reporting in 10-Ks as a quasi-natural experimental setting in which to apply a difference-in-differences analysis. We focus on CCR because of its vast influence on economic activities and the relative ease of identifying managerial behaviors related to climate change. Our results reveal that CCR-disclosing firms tend to engage more (less) in pro-environmental (anti-environmental) activities after the SEC 2010 rule. These real effects are more pronounced in firms that are under higher pressure from climateminded external stakeholders and when firms’ businesses are more sensitive to climate change-related risks. We also find improved environmental performance in terms of reductions in the quantity, intensity, and cost of carbon emissions surrounding the SEC 2010 rule. Overall, our findings suggest that CCR disclosures alter corporate behaviors and help curb climate change