Accounting - Costello

Costello College of Business Students

Bachelor’s/Accelerated Master’s program

Are there upsides to “overboarding”?

Nilesh Patel — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:13:26 +0000

Are there upsides to “overboarding”? Nilesh Patel Mon, 07/14/2025 - 13:13

In This Story

Sebahattin Demirkan

How many board seats is too many for one director? That’s the question on many investors’ minds, as they confront the possibility of “overboarding”—directors being spread too thin to do their work effectively. BlackRock, for example, voted to oust one of Twitter’s board members in 2022 because he sat on the boards of six other companies.

However, new research from Sebahattin Demirkan, associate professor of accounting in the Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, suggests there may be upsides to board directors holding multiple seats at the same time. His paper in Asian Review of Accounting finds that deeply networked boards are more flexible and creative when it comes to a key competitive area: open-ended strategic alliances.

The paper’s co-authors are Robert Felix of The Catholic University of America and Nan Zhou of University of Cincinnati.

The researchers used a metric called “board centrality” to quantify the total social capital held by a company’s board of directors.

“Centralized directors are leaders who have been in the industry a long time,” says Demirkan. “They sit on multiple boards. And they are deeply connected within an industry, such as if Nvidia and Intel have a relationship and that person is working as a board member for both.”

The researchers used the SDC strategic alliances database to capture new alliances formed during the period 1998-2011. Their data-set comprised 18,412 firm-year observations.

First, they divided the alliances into joint ventures and incomplete contracts. Joint ventures, which involve setting up an entirely separate business entity, entail much less complexity and uncertainty than do contractual alliances, which by definition cannot account for all the surprising challenges that may lie ahead. The paper finds that centralized boards were more likely to embark upon both types of strategic alliances, but the effect was strongest for contractual alliances.

Demirkan stresses that the two types aren’t mutually exclusive; a contractual alliance can be a precursor to a successful joint venture. “I always use marriage as a comparison…Some cultures do arranged marriage because families know each other very well, because they were neighbours and so on and so forth. It’s trial and error but you don’t want to make too many errors because these arrangements may hurt your parent company business. That’s where board capital comes in. Centralized board members know which strategic alliances will work for this particular company.”

Further, centralized boards took on more strategic alliances when their CEOs were relatively new, underscoring boards’ customary advisory role. Similarly, diversified firms, which normally require more guidance from the board, saw a stronger relationship between board capital and propensity for strategic alliances. The same was true of firms with more intangible assets—in other words, innovative companies engaging in heavy R&D.

The researchers also looked into whether the enhanced alliance activity paid off for these firms. Their analysis confirmed that the special ability of centralized boards to form successful strategic alliances was associated with higher market performance, steadier returns and lower audit fees.

This strikes an interesting contrast with some of Demirkan’s earlier publications on similar topics. For example, a 2014 paper in Journal of Business Research found that firms with contractual alliances suffered from lower earnings quality, making them a riskier bet for investors. A 2016 paper in Contemporary Accounting Research linked contractual alliances to higher audit fees.

“The market doesn’t like companies with contractual alliances,” Demirkan says. “It discounts their stock prices, because the information environment is not good; it’s quite complex and the boundaries are not well defined.”

However, the new paper indicates that centralized boards act as a reassuring signal to capital markets that offsets some of the inherent risk of contractual alliances. “Boards with high social capital may manage this better, because they are much more knowledgeable,” Demirkan says. “They know which contractual alliances are good, and the market also trusts them to pick these alliances wisely.”

Topics

Costello Research Corporate Governance

Costello Research Competitive Strategy

Costello Research Internal Audit

Costello Research Market Efficiency

Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO

Jennifer Anzaldi — Wed, 07 May 2025 12:46:40 +0000

Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO Jennifer Anzaldi Wed, 05/07/2025 - 08:46

In This Story

JK Aier

Are corporate boards acting as stabilizing forces for their firms, or enablers of extreme greed? That’s one of the questions implied by current debates about so-called “runaway CEO pay.” It’s not entirely clear how the CEO incentives set by the board can be squared with its fiduciary duty to safeguard long-term shareholder value. That’s largely due to the mystery surrounding how CEO compensation is determined in the first place.

“It’s a black box,” says JK Aier, senior associate dean for academic affairs and global engagement and associate professor of accounting at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ. “We don’t know why boards give bonuses, why CEOs get a raise—in other words, what goes on behind the scenes.”

JK Aier

Aier’s academic paper, forthcoming in Accounting and Business Research, circumvents this problem by focusing on cases posing stark contrasts between short- and long-term value. (Jian Cao of Florida Atlantic University, Zhanel DeVides of Penn State Abington and Ki Kyung Song of West Chester University co-authored.) When a company reports increased earnings year after year, a short-sighted board would raise CEO compensation in line with that performance, incentivizing the CEO to keep up the good work. To cooler heads, however, such a long “earnings string” would raise red flags, prompting a more cautious stance toward compensation.

“Continuous growth or expectations of continuous growth create adverse incentives and challenges because it’s not possible, given how business cycles work,” says Aier. “It may create undue pressure on CEOs to maintain growth somehow if it is strongly tied to compensation.” A strict pay-for-performance approach could induce CEOs to take risks that endanger long-term firm value, such as engaging in managerial manipulation. But how religiously do boards adhere to pay-for-performance?

The researchers examined earnings patterns and CEO compensation for thousands of firms during the period 1999-2018 (11,197 firm-year observations in all). �鶹��Ƶ two-thirds of the firm-years saw an increase in earnings; of those, fewer than 20 percent were in their sixth year or later in an unbroken earnings string.

Across the sample, CEO compensation over time was responsive to earnings patterns. For the first few years of the string, boards lavished their outperforming CEOs with expanding pay packets. But rewards tapered off in subsequent years, indicating that boards may be aware of the risks of over-incentivizing long patterns of increased earnings.

A similar relationship existed for firms with negative earnings strings. After sharply reducing compensation in the first two years of losses, boards stopped penalizing struggling CEOs and kept compensation fairly flat.

“If a company continues to have losses, will directors keep penalizing the CEO? If they do, no one will want to work for that company,” Aier says. “Instead, giving CEOs a runway during a string of continuous losses provides them the opportunity to turn things around.”

The researchers also looked at the probability of CEO turnover as it related to earnings patterns. Surprisingly, CEOs who presided over uncommonly long upward strings faced increased odds of turnover, which Aier attributes in part to board suspicions. “On the profit side, there seems to be a loss of trust that this is even possible,” he says. “Boards are willing to look at changing the CEO because they believe these strings may be unsustainable. In other words, something smells fishy to them.”

The opposite dynamic held true for poorly performing firms. CEO turnover risk declined over the longer downward strings, presumably reflecting broader concerns about retaining talent during prolonged periods of financial difficulty.

In sum, board compensation committees seem highly attentive to earnings patterns, monitoring them for long-term risks and adjusting CEO pay packets accordingly. This cuts against the idea that directors may be complicit in a CEO money grab that imperils firms’ long-term standing.

Moreover, the researchers found that the above-mentioned relationship between earnings patterns and CEO compensation was much stronger for firms experiencing lower competition and higher earnings persistence. This suggests that where market discipline is lacking, directors will pay even closer attention to earnings strings in order to keep CEOs honest.

“Our research suggests that boards pay attention to their monitoring role,” Aier concludes. “Boards are proactive; they care not only about whether the company is doing well, but also how performance is achieved.”

Hedging long-term risks by changing CEO compensation is one way directors can prevent misaligned incentives from forming. “The board’s role goes beyond making sure things go smoothly. It is also looking into the future in terms of what’s needed for the company and its stakeholders, and making sure the operations and the management of the company are also looking at performance from that perspective,” Aier says.

Topics

Costello Research Risk Management

Costello Research Corporate Governance

Study: Left-handed CEOs are more innovative

Jennifer Anzaldi — Wed, 30 Apr 2025 02:32:28 +0000

Study: Left-handed CEOs are more innovative Jennifer Anzaldi Tue, 04/29/2025 - 22:32

In This Story

Long Chen

June Woo Park

Q: What do Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have in common (besides the obvious)?
A: All three belong to a community comprising about 10% of the population—the community of the left-handed.

And they’re far from the only business luminaries who are members. Steve Forbes, Oprah Winfrey and Lou Gerstner (of IBM fame) are left-handed, as were John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and Ratan Tata.

Of course, this could be a mere coincidence—but perhaps not. The popular belief that left-handers think more creatively—and hence may enjoy an innovative edge in business—has been supported by cognitive neuroscience research, which shows that the left hand is controlled by the brain’s right hemisphere, a region closely associated with creative thinking. However, conflicting findings and limited research evidence prevent broad conclusions about the correlation between creativity and handedness, let alone its potential implications for business leadership.

A forthcoming research publication by Long Chen and June Woo Park, two accounting professors at the Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, constitutes the first rigorous scholarly investigation into whether—and how—handedness plays a role in business innovation.

June Woo Park and Long Chen

The paper was co-authored by Albert Tsang of Southern University of Science and Technology and Xiaofang Xu of Beijing Technology and Business University.

The researchers searched Google for photos and videos of S&P 500 CEOs engaged in activities like writing, throwing, drawing, and eating to determine their dominant hand, if wasn’t already disclosed in published sources. “We looked at pictures of them on the golf course to see how they held their clubs,” Park explains. “We also noted which wrist they wore their watch on; left-handed people often wear it on the right.” When in doubt, they followed up with calls or emails to the respective companies. All in all, they were able to identify the handedness of 1,008 CEOs across 472 companies: 91.4 percent were right-handed, 7.9 percent left-handed, and 0.7 percent mixed.

The researchers then looked at the numbers of patents and citations received by the firms from 1992 to 2015. They controlled for firm and industry characteristics, as well as other personal traits known to affect CEO innovativeness (such as age, education, risk preference shaped by experience, birth order, and founder status).

In addition, they performed several follow-up tests, including one focused on a narrow subset of firms that unexpectedly switched from a right-handed CEO to a left-handed one due to unforeseeable circumstances such as death or illness.

Every variation of the study produced essentially the same result: Firms led by left-handed CEOs demonstrate significantly higher innovative output. The differences were qualitative as well as quantitative. Patents under left-handed leadership were more likely to represent something new under the sun, rather than a spin-off from established technology.

The researchers hypothesized that the left-handers’ creative orientation would impact the way they ran their firms, including hiring decisions. Indeed, they found that companies applied for more H-1B and STEM visas when left-handers were at the helm. This emphasis on talent acquisition was not only a key indicator of innovation commitment, but may have also contributed to the firms’ creative advantage.

“We find that left-handed CEOs are more likely to hire immigrant inventors in STEM fields, and are also more likely to be inventors themselves,” Chen says. “These findings strengthen our argument by highlighting specific ways in which left-handed CEOs may directly enhance firm innovation.”

Still, piling up patents doesn’t automatically produce outcomes that will make customers and shareholders happy. Ultimately, firm performance is what matters in evaluating business success. As additional analyses in the study suggest, firms led by left-handers had higher return on assets and stronger buy-and-hold returns than peers with a right-handed leader.

“They outperformed their counterparts,” Park summarizes. “Investors are drawn to innovative firms, and left-handedness is one of the factors investors could use in their stock-picking.”

Yet innovative success is complex and multifaceted. Left-handedness is only one potentially meaningful trait among many—a lot more are yet to be explored.

“Our results are based on a large sample. But investors should not assume a CEO that is not left-handed lacks innovative potential,” Chen says.

For their ongoing and future research projects, Chen and Park are looking beyond left-handedness to explore other deeply personal CEO traits that may have business implications.

“We find it fascinating to draw on insights from disciplines outside accounting and finance,” Chen says. “CEO decisions may be shaped by factors like family experiences, genetics, academic background, career paths, and more—really, the full range of experiences that makes them who they are. Understanding that can help market participants better interpret and predict CEOs’ decision-making.”

Topics

A.I. & Innovation - Costello

Costello Research Careers

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Costello Research Teams

Does the world need a ‘universal language’ of accounting?

Jennifer Anzaldi — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 15:40:40 +0000

Does the world need a ‘universal language’ of accounting? Jennifer Anzaldi Tue, 01/07/2025 - 10:40

In This Story

David S. Koo

In the early years of the 21st century, investors had good reason to hope that a single, globally accepted accounting framework would soon emerge to unite the world’s financial markets. It seemed inevitable that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would abandon its devotion to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and adopt the Esperanto-like International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Then came the financial crisis, which punctured optimism around globalization. In 2012, an SEC staff report confirmed the shift in sentiment, pointedly withholding an anticipated timeline for IFRS adoption.

David Koo

However, the dream of convergence continues, and may be slowly coming true, albeit in a low-key way. According to David Koo, assistant professor of accounting at Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, having two competing frameworks may even be a net benefit for cross-market comparability.

Koo's latest paper, forthcoming in The International Journal of Accounting and co-authored with John X. Jiang and Isabel Wang of Michigan State University, plumbs accounting research, industry analyses and corporate data to draw high-level conclusions about the “competition” between U.S.-GAAP and IFRS.

After 2012, some experts were concerned that the apparent snub from the SEC would dissuade undecided countries from signing onto IFRS, thereby increasing fragmentation. Yet Koo and his co-authors show that the opposite happened: Between 2011 and 2022, IFRS adoption surged from 53.3% to 76.7% among non-North American firms.

“People were concerned that IFRS’ influence would diminish if the U.S. did not adopt, but it didn’t happen,” Koo summarizes. “According to our survey, IFRS is thriving and has become the most widely used accounting standard.”

Another fear was that U.S.-GAAP and IFRS would become more distinct over time, which would hamper comparability. However, the researchers note that the SEC maintains a position on the IFRS Foundation Monitoring Board. Also, several Americans sit on the 14-member International Accounting Standards Board, the oversight body for IFRS.

Indeed, the researchers found that the discrepancies between the two frameworks peaked before 2012, according to comparisons performed over time by KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

“The accounting boards work tightly together; they have corresponded in an active way for the past 10 to 15 years,” Koo says. “It seems that they are learning from each other. They are separate—however, when they introduce new standards, they collaborate.”

Koo surmises that this sort of “managed divergence” might be preferable in some ways to universal adoption of IFRS. Because the two frameworks are seen as roughly equivalent in terms of quality, the informational benefit of switching from one to the other might not justify the transition cost.

“People were concerned that IFRS’ influence would diminish if the U.S. did not adopt, but it didn’t happen,” Koo summarizes. “According to our survey, IFRS is thriving and has become the most widely used accounting standard.”

Additionally, competing frameworks create a balance of power that might prove more sustainable over the long term than a global monopoly. “If we adopt IFRS universally, most companies would follow the same standard,” Koo says. “This widespread influence would be so huge in that case that it might cause conflict or tension about the standard-setting process. Having Independent processes can allow countries to have some autonomy, which can be beneficial.”

The researchers suggest that the same principle could apply to current efforts to develop global standards for mandatory sustainability reporting. The European Union, Asia, and North America differ greatly from one another in economic development, cultural values, etc. As a result, multinational companies doing business across these regions face a frustrating patchwork of expectations when it comes to climate and other impact-based disclosures. Here, too, some form of “managed divergence” might be the best way forward, with jurisdictions remaining separate while engaging in close collaboration.

“Companies want to have standardized expectations in terms of sustainability, but it is not easy,” Koo says. “Similar to financial reporting, the two main pillars will likely be the U.S. and EU, which both have advanced standards. Other countries will choose depending on their comfort.”

“Having two good standards in the world may be better than one.”

Topics

Costello Research SEC/PCAOB

When CEOs are haunted by memories of past recessions

Jennifer Anzaldi — Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:43:41 +0000

When CEOs are haunted by memories of past recessions Jennifer Anzaldi Tue, 11/12/2024 - 14:43

In This Story

David S. Koo

The economy, we’re often reminded, is cyclical. But we all hope our careers won’t be. That means those of us who make it to the very top—CEOs, for instance—may be unduly influenced by memories of prior economic go-rounds. David Koo, assistant professor of accounting in the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, has found that memories of past recessions, triggered by recent ones, can weigh on chief executives’ decisions, literally for years.

Koo’s paper, co-authored by Isabel Wang of Michigan State University and Shuting Wu of Cal State Fullerton, is forthcoming in Management Science.

David Koo

The paper was inspired by trends in research outside the accounting field. “In the economics area, they have started looking at how executives’ memories of recessions can affect important decision-making right now,” Koo says. “We are trying to connect these emerging trends to the accounting area by focusing on pessimistic bias in their outlook of the company’s performance.”

The researchers adopted the 2008 financial crisis as a key moment for triggering veteran CEOs’ memories of prior financial downturns. They analyzed annual management earnings forecasts for U.S. public companies for the period 2002-2018, alongside the characteristics and career histories of the CEOs who issued them. “We used the first forecast of the year for each year, because on average these are more optimistic,” Koo explains. “Usually, nobody wants to say anything negative at the beginning of a year.” The final data-set comprised 3,678 earnings forecasts from 466 CEOs.

Koo and his co-authors discovered that CEOs who had previously led companies through at least one past recession issued significantly more pessimistic forecasts post-2008 than they had before the crisis. As a general rule, the more recessions a CEO had undergone in their tenure at the top, the more pessimistic their post-crisis forecasts tended to be.

The same pessimistic pattern was not evident for CEOs who had not experienced a recession before 2008. Translating their findings into economic terms, the researchers concluded that one standard deviation of the memory-triggered pessimism effect was equivalent to 0.23-0.29 percent of share price.

Further, the post-crisis pessimism did not make the forecasts more accurate. It’s safe to say, then, that the memory-triggered CEOs were, knowingly or not, displaying excessive caution and conservatism in their earnings forecasts. To be sure, anyone’s outlook can darken with age, independent of their real-world experience. So the researchers performed subsequent checks to determine whether the increased pessimism was more closely related to growing older, or to specific memories of past recessions.

“Our takeaway is, if we have two same-age CEOs, one who has experience navigating recessions as a CEO and one who does not, the first one will become more pessimistic after the crisis,” Koo says.

The more highly skilled CEOs (as measured by a widely accepted scale for managerial ability) exhibited less memory-induced pessimism, while CEOs who led more complex firms with a lot of moving parts were more prone to pessimism. “We expected that the manager-specific effect would be more significant when managers were under more demanding pressure or had more discretion,” Koo explains.

As the 2008 financial crisis itself faded into memory, seasoned CEOs gradually let go of their pessimistic bias. But it took three years, on average, for their forecasts to fully recover. We normally think of past experience as an aid to learning, but here it seems that the opposite was the case: Memories of past experiences with recessions slowed down CEOs’ post-crisis learning process.

“Prior research has found that past experiences can help people more rationally and then more wisely handle an ongoing crisis,” Koo says. “But at the same time, executives are also human beings. They may be scarred by their experiences and that can induce them to be excessively negative or pessimistic when they go through a financial crisis.”

Of course, that doesn’t mean that the veteran CEOs were less effective at guiding their firms through post-crisis recovery. Koo emphasizes that his findings do not capture whether, and how quickly, companies bounced back from the 2008 recession.

“Memory may not be the most dominant factor in our decision-making, but it still can influence executives even in their managerial decision-making,” Koo advises.

The lesson, then, is one for investors and other market players to store in their own memories for the next economic downturn: Take CEOs’ post-crisis predictions with at least a grain of salt.

Topics

Costello Research Evaluating Performance

Costello Research Strategic Management

Costello Research Risk Management

Costello Research Corporate Finance

Costello Research Financial Crises

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

GenAI brings us closer to automating investment expertise

Jennifer Anzaldi — Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:39:34 +0000

GenAI brings us closer to automating investment expertise Jennifer Anzaldi Thu, 08/22/2024 - 14:39

In This Story

Yi Cao

Long Chen

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini excel at being trained on large data-sets to generate informative responses to prompts. Yi Cao, an assistant professor of accounting at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, and Long Chen, associate professor and area chair of accounting at Costello, are actively exploring how individual investors can use LLMs to glean market insights from the dizzying array of available data about companies.

Long Chen and Yi Cao

Their new working paper, co-authored with Jennifer Wu Tucker of the University of Florida and Chi Wan of University of Massachusetts Boston, examines AI’s ability to identify “peer firms,” or product market competitors in an industry.

Cao explains the significance of selecting peers by relating this process to the real-estate market. “The capital market is similar to the real-estate market in that a firm’s value is partially determined by the value of its peers. In the real-estate market, we price a home based on the value of comparable properties in the neighborhood, or the so-called 'comps.' In our paper, we aim to leverage the power of LLMs to identify comps for evaluating firm value.”

This task is at least as difficult as it is essential. It takes much time, skill and effort to gather, aggregate and manage data to select peers. However, the researchers reasoned that LLMs could do a lot of the heavy lifting of data aggregation and analysis for the individual investors, and produce a list of peers comparable in validity to that identified by human experts.

“The advantage is in the capability to utilize all the information potentially out there so that it is at least performing as well as other traditional methods that can help us investors and researchers,” says Cao.

For the study, Chen and Cao employed Bard from Google, now known as “Gemini,” as their LLM of choice because “Bard has a greater ability to utilize its pre-training data, which is arguably larger than ChatGPT’s and with more parameters,” says Cao.

After defining “product market competition” and forming a prompt for Bard, the researchers instructed Bard to limit its knowledge pool to a specific year within the period 1981-2023, in order to avoid “look-ahead bias,” i.e., future information scrambling the results.

“We need to understand that LLMs are actually a very powerful, new tool, unmatched in their efficiency, ability to process vast amounts of information at a low cost, and accessibility to the general public.”

They limited focal firms to large, publicly listed companies as there is less data out there for smaller or private firms. In all, the data-set comprised more than 300,000 focal firm-years.

On average, the LLM could generate about seven peer firms for a focal firm, a number that is similar to the SEC recommendations on how firms should disclose their segments.

The researchers then compared the LLM’s performance to the lists generated by three human experts for a set of 40 leading computer software companies. The average overlap was a little over 40 percent, greater than expected.

They also compared the AI-identified peer lists to two alternative systems for identifying peers: the federal government’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and Text-based Network Industry Classification (TNIC), which compares firms based on linguistic similarities in their 10-K filings. The LLM’s output overlapped significantly with TNIC’s. Plus, the peers identified by the LLM were generally a better fit than those from SIC and TNIC, as their monthly stock returns hewed closer to the focal firm.

But TNIC outperformed the LLM in identifying peers for mid-sized firms within the sample, indicating that it is not a clear-cut case of universal LLM superiority.

“It’s especially beneficial for individual investors—as all the cost concerns that we’re talking about are especially relevant for them,” Chen adds.

Regarding the future of LLM, Chen states, “There are always costs and benefits associated with using generative AI. It is uncertain whether current systems will soon be obsolete.” When asked about the SEC adopting an AI tool for investors, Chen emphasizes that users need to understand the pros and cons of using AI to make their informed judgments “because AI cannot be held responsible for the information it provides or for how it is utilized.”

Chen concludes, “We need to embrace this new technology, but we must recognize that it is not yet in a perfect state. Competition to improve the technology is fierce. Our findings might just represent the lower bound of the effectiveness of the technology.”

Topics

A.I. & Innovation - Costello

Costello Research Innovation Strategy

Costello Research SEC/PCAOB

Costello Research Private Funds

Costello Research Market Efficiency

Artificial Intelligence

How this summer’s heat waves may impact the economy

Greg Johnson — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 13:39:44 +0000

How this summer’s heat waves may impact the economy Greg Johnson Tue, 08/06/2024 - 09:39

This sweltering summer has brought record-breaking high temperatures to 63 countries, all but cementing 2024’s status as the world’s hottest year on record (even though we’re barely past the halfway point). Such extreme weather trends are bound to have serious implications for the environment, public health, and the economy.

Joseph (Han) Stice

Why, then, aren’t economic indicators flashing bright red? Joseph (Han) Stice, assistant professor of accounting at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ, has run the numbers on business and climate change. His recent working paper, co-authored by Marcus Kirk of University of Florida and Derrald Stice of University of Hong Kong, paints a picture of profound climate-related disruption underneath the placid-seeming surface of the economy.

For the years 1990 to 2020, the researchers compared quarterly sales performance from a large sample of U.S. firms to the temperature data at their base of operations. In this way, they constructed a measure of weather sensitivity, which they termed “weather beta,” for each company in the initial sample. Specifically, they were looking at whether sales either benefited or suffered when local temperatures were higher or lower than the “ideal” of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

“What they—they being the people who examine temperature—say is that if it’s above 65, you turn on your air conditioning. If it’s below 65, you turn on your heater,” says Stice.

After restricting the sample to only those firms with discernible weather beta, they ended up with a data-set comprising 66,795 firm-quarters.

Across the sample as a whole, the results were a misleading nonstarter. Weather fluctuations did not seem to have an impact on economy-wide sales, one way or the other.

This was no surprise to Stice. Citing past research, he points out that “the overall economic effect is that colder weather is, on average, better. But that’s not true in every single instance. Some industries (i.e., agriculture) benefit from hot weather. And it also depends on what region you’re in, what time of year it is, etc.”

“We need to have a national discussion and a global discussion,” Stice says. “But the people who really matter are the local leaders, as far as climate is concerned. The people you elect on the local level are going to have a much greater impact on how you respond and how your companies can adjust, than whether or not your candidate is in the White House.”

To gauge actual impact, the researchers split the sample by size and geographic concentration, presuming that larger firms with a wider geographic footprint would be less affected by temperature changes at home base. These differences between firms proved to be critical. For the smallest, most localized firms, a swing from the 75th to the 25th percentile in terms of nonideal temperature meant 8.8-15.9% lower sales. The biggest and most sprawling firms saw sales declines of just 4.3-5.6% from an equivalent shift.

Stice clarifies that “we are talking about very small deviations, like percentages of degrees on average per day over an entire quarter. If it were one degree hotter than 65 degrees every day, that would come up in our measure as a 90. The biggest number we have is like a 25 or a 30.”

Also, sales impact tells only part of the story. The sheer size of the data-set allowed Stice and his co-authors to predict quarterly sales performance for individual firms, based on the weather and firm characteristics. On average, actual sales declines were about half as severe as predicted. The researchers speculate that firms were able to soften the blow of immoderate temperatures by adjusting their business practices. The time and resources spent on these adaptations are part of the hidden economic costs of climate volatility.

If firm managers can anticipate how the weather can impact business outcomes, you would expect financial analysts to be at least as attentive to climate effects. However, the researchers found that sales forecasts made shortly before earnings announcements were thrown off by abnormal temperatures in the previous quarter, with 7.4% inaccuracy in the mean. Similarly, the researchers found that weather impact was positively correlated with announcement-period stock market returns. Apparently, even professional investors are being caught off guard by the subtle but costly interactions between climate and economic activity.

For more accurate appraisals, Stice suggests we should turn to the local level. He notes that his measures of firm-specific weather sensitivity happen to line up fairly neatly with municipal self-assessments made by local governments as part of the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Empower your future with Costello College of Business

In This Story

Han Stice

Topics

Costello Research Sustainable Operations

ESG - Costello

Costello Research Risk Management

A.I. & Innovation - Costello

In Silicon Valley, human capital trumps intellectual capital

Marianne Klinker — Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:23:12 +0000

In Silicon Valley, human capital trumps intellectual capital Marianne Klinker Mon, 01/22/2024 - 11:23

To stay competitive in the war for talent, tech companies must weigh secrecy against specificity when crafting job ads. Are they disclosing too much?

Job postings are a key tool for attracting qualified tech workers. However, companies face a dilemma: on the one hand, they want to provide enough information to attract the right candidates; on the other hand, they want to keep the information about their product development and planning private. Sometimes it is just hard to get both.

Yi Cao

In a recent paper for Contemporary Accounting Research, accounting professor Yi Cao of the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ argues that highly competitive companies are more likely to post specific job requirements in order to find qualified workers even at the cost of potentially leaking proprietary trade secrets. (The paper was co-authored by Shijun Cheng of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Jenny Wu Tucker of the University of Florida, and Chi Wan of the University of Massachusetts Boston.)

Generally, companies reveal less information during fierce competition to avoid giving their competitors an advantage. However, Cao finds that “when the technological competition is more fierce, companies provide more information into the labor market because they have to do this in order to attract talents, which is the essential driving force of innovation. They're balancing the trade-off between not leaking secrets but not hiring the matching candidates, versus leaking some of the trade secrets while more likely to hire matching employees. So between these two trade-offs, obviously, we find that companies choose to bear the risk of leaking information in order to acquire talents.”

The benefits of quickly attracting desired tech talent outweigh the potential costs of revealing proprietary information.

To examine the relationship between technological competition and skill specificity in job postings for tech positions, the researchers used a novel job posting database provided by Burning Glass Technologies (BGT). They calculated the skill-specificity scores of the job ads based on the level of information disclosed in the skill-requirements of the job postings and the taxonomy of skills, and then aggregated it annually by firm. Cao’s paper is the first to propose a taxonomy theory-based measure of term specificity in the business field. This provides companies with a handy tool for measuring the specificity of textual documents and precisely determining how much information to disclose.

Cao uses the example of a company looking for workers with AI experience to demonstrate how the measure works. The company could post a job listing that simply says, "We are looking for someone to build machine learning tools." This is a relatively vague job posting that would not provide job seekers with detailed information about the specific skills that the company is looking for. The company could also reword the post more specifically, e.g. "We are looking for someone to use Python and decision tree algorithms for credit card risk." Alternatively, they could be even more specific with language like, "We are looking for someone who have experience with random forest algorithms to specifically apply a portfolio level of prediction of credit card defaults." This description provides job seekers with detailed information about the specific tasks and skills that the company is looking for, while at the same time revealing information about existing technology.

Cao found that on average, firms disclose an additional 27 specific skills in their job ads when facing intense technological competition. The results reveal that the benefits of quickly attracting desired tech talent outweigh the potential costs of revealing proprietary information.

The findings did not apply to job advertisements for lower-level non-tech positions, such as food preparation and cleaning staff. However, they were observable for senior non-tech positions, e.g. directors of marketing or finance. These nuances suggest that both tech and managerial talent were valuable enough to motivate a higher degree of disclosure from employers.

Additionally, the effect on disclosure was much stronger for incremental innovators—firms whose patents tended to build on past knowledge, rather than strike out in new technological directions. The researchers speculate that breakthrough innovators would have too much to lose if they were to signal their plans through job postings.

While more detailed job postings can be helpful for finding qualified workers, they also could reveal proprietary information about the company's products and strategies. Cao emphasizes, “[Companies are] basically telling the world what [they’re] trying to create. With higher level of detail you’re trying to describe, you're disclosing more information to potentially everyone. And that information is beneficial in terms of labor demand because it attracts the right employee. But it's a concern in terms of competition because you basically show cards to your opponents.”

As an accounting scholar, Cao is intrigued by the possibilities inherent in the discovery that labor-market pressures can force employers to divulge potentially compromising information. “In financial reporting, we don’t capitalize human capital; we consider it an expense,” he says. “But that’s not necessarily the case when the labor market is tight and when the labor is essential in productivity. Our paper shows how the labor market, product market, and capital market are not segregated, but connected.”

Topics

Costello Research Recruiting

Costello Research Strategic Management

Costello Research Innovation Strategy

Costello Research Competitive Strategy