The joint impact of commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy on managers' forecasting credibility

Repository

The joint impact of commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy on managers' forecasting credibility

Show simple record

dc.contributor.advisor Koonce, Lisa Lynn, 1959-
dc.contributor.advisor Hirst, Eric
dc.creator Venkataraman, Shankar, 1969-
dc.date.accessioned 2012-09-07T16:58:00Z
dc.date.available 2012-09-07T16:58:00Z
dc.date.created 2008-08
dc.date.issued 2012-09-07
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2152/17813
dc.description.abstract Although managers rate concerns about being seen as committed disclosers as an important consideration in their voluntary disclosure decisions, prior research has paid limited attention to how investors view commitment to disclosure. This study experimentally tests two competing perspectives relating to how managers' commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy jointly influence managers' forecasting credibility. The first perspective (the normative perspective) draws on economic theory and the second perspective (the omission bias perspective) draws on theory from psychology. The normative perspective suggests that commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy will independently influence managers' forecasting credibility. In contrast, the omission bias literature suggests that the influence of commitment to disclosure on managers' forecasting credibility depends on managers' prior forecast accuracy. In other words, the normative perspective suggests two main effects, whereas the omission bias perspective suggests a commitment to disclosure x accuracy interaction. To test the competing predictions relating to the joint impact of commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy on managers' forecasting credibility, I conduct an experiment. Results of this experiment support the omission bias perspective. Participants in the role of investors rate more (less) committed managers as more (less) credible, but only when they are also accurate. When managers are inaccurate, however, this relationship reverses. That is, more committed managers are viewed as less credible relative to their less committed peers. These results suggest that managers' concerns about commitment to disclosure are indeed valid, but only when they are accurate. When managers are less accurate, commitment to disclosure hurts, rather than helps, managers' credibility. Participants' valuation judgments as well as their judgments relating to a current disclosure are positively associated with their judgments of managers' forecasting credibility, suggesting that their assessment of managers' credibility may have significant valuation consequences. This study contributes to the voluntary disclosure literature and has implications for managers who provide earnings forecasts and for investors who use these forecasts in their investment decisions.
dc.format.medium electronic
dc.language.iso eng
dc.rights Copyright © is held by the author. Presentation of this material on the Libraries' web site by University Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin was made possible under a limited license grant from the author who has retained all copyrights in the works.
dc.subject.lcsh Disclosure in accounting
dc.subject.lcsh Business forecasting
dc.subject.lcsh Corporate governance
dc.title The joint impact of commitment to disclosure and prior forecast accuracy on managers' forecasting credibility
dc.description.department Accounting
dc.type.genre Thesis
dc.type.material text
thesis.degree.department Accounting
thesis.degree.discipline Accounting
thesis.degree.grantor The University of Texas at Austin
thesis.degree.level Doctoral
thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy

Files in this work

Download File: venkataramans.pdf
Size: 371.7Kb
Format: application/pdf

This work appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple record


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics

Information