IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v36y2019i1p50-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Asymmetries about Measurement Quality

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Glover
  • Carolyn B. Levine

Abstract

This article studies contracts between a principal and an agent that are robust to information asymmetries about measurement quality. Our main result is that an information asymmetry about measurement quality not only reduces the usefulness of a given performance measure for stewardship purposes, it also qualitatively changes the way the performance measure is used if the information asymmetry is sufficiently large. We also study the manipulability of performance measures, assuming that poor measurement quality creates room for manipulation via selective (cherry‐picked) corrections by the agent. With known imperfect measurement quality, manipulability lowers the cost of providing incentives. Manipulability introduces overstatements only, while imperfect measurement introduces both overstatements and understatements. However, with an information asymmetry about measurement quality, manipulability can increase the cost of providing incentives, since there is now an induced information asymmetry about manipulability. Asymétrie de l'information relative à la qualité des critères d'évaluation Les auteurs étudient des contrats mandant‐mandataire suffisamment solides pour résister aux asymétries de l'information relative à la qualité des critères d'évaluation. Selon leur principal constat, l'asymétrie de l'information quant à la qualité des critères d'évaluation a pour conséquence non seulement de réduire l'utilité d'un critère donné d'évaluation de la performance à des fins de gérance, mais aussi de modifier l'aspect qualitatif de son utilisation lorsque l'asymétrie de l'information est suffisamment importante. Les auteurs analysent également la mesure dans laquelle les critères d'évaluation de la performance peuvent être manipulés, en s'appuyant sur l'hypothèse selon laquelle la piètre qualité des critères d'évaluation les expose à être manipulés par le mandataire au moyen de corrections sélectives. Dans le cas de critères d'évaluation connus mais imparfaits, la possibilité de manipuler les critères réduit les coûts associés à l'instauration de mesures incitatives. Des critères d'évaluation de la performance exposés à la manipulation entraînent uniquement des surestimations, alors que des critères d'évaluation imparfaits entraînent à la fois des surestimations et des sous‐estimations. Cependant, en situation d'asymétrie de l'information relative à la qualité des critères d'évaluation, des critères d'évaluation de la performance qui se prêtent à la manipulation risquent d'accroître les coûts associés à l'instauration de mesures incitatives, compte tenu de l'asymétrie de l'information alors induite quant à la possibilité de manipulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Glover & Carolyn B. Levine, 2019. "Information Asymmetries about Measurement Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 50-71, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:36:y:2019:i:1:p:50-71
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12434
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12434?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferri, Fabrizio & Zheng, Ronghuo & Zou, Yuan, 2018. "Uncertainty about managers’ reporting objectives and investors’ response to earnings reports: Evidence from the 2006 executive compensation disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 339-365.
    2. Gao, Pingyang, 2013. "A measurement approach to conservatism and earnings management," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 251-268.
    3. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    4. Robert M. Bushman & Raffi J. Indjejikian & Mark C. Penno, 2000. "Private Predecision Information, Performance Measure Congruity, and the Value of Delegation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 562-587, December.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Robust Mechanism Design," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 2, pages 49-96, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    7. Peter Ove Christensen & Joel S. Demski & Hans Frimor, 2002. "Accounting Policies in Agencies with Moral Hazard and Renegotiation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1071-1090, September.
    8. Penno, M, 1996. "Unobservable precision choices in financial reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 141-149.
    9. Joel S. Demski, 1998. "Performance Measure Manipulation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 261-285, September.
    10. Laux, Christian & Leuz, Christian, 2009. "The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 826-834, August.
    11. Dye, Ra, 1988. "Earnings Management In An Overlapping Generations Model," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 195-235.
    12. Michael Kirschenheiter & Nahum D. Melumad, 2002. "Can “Big Bath” and Earnings Smoothing Co‐exist as Equilibrium Financial Reporting Strategies?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 761-796, June.
    13. Kim, Son Ku, 1995. "Efficiency of an Information System in an Agency Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 89-102, January.
    14. Geoffrey Whittington, 2008. "Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(2), pages 139-168, June.
    15. François Larmande & Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 2013. "Fishing for excuses and performance evaluation," Working Papers hal-00825297, HAL.
    16. John Christensen, 1981. "Communication in Agencies," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 661-674, Autumn.
    17. Gjesdal, F, 1981. "Accounting For Stewardship," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 208-231.
    18. Iván Marinovic, 2013. "Internal control system, earnings quality, and the dynamics of financial reporting," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(1), pages 145-167, March.
    19. Demski, JS & Frimor, H, 1999. "Performance measure garbling under renegotiation in multiperiod agencies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 187-214.
    20. Peter O. Christensen & Hans Frimor & Florin Sabac, 2013. "The Stewardship Role of Analyst Forecasts, and Discretionary Versus Non-discretionary Accruals," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 257-296, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter O. Christensen & Hans Frimor & Florin Şabac, 2020. "Real Incentive Effects of Soft Information," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 514-541, March.
    2. Armstrong, Christopher S. & Guay, Wayne R. & Weber, Joseph P., 2010. "The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 179-234, December.
    3. Lambert, Richard A., 2001. "Contracting theory and accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 3-87, December.
    4. Ralf Ewert & Alfred Wagenhofer, 2015. "Economic Relations Among Earnings Quality Measures," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(3), pages 311-355, September.
    5. Hermalin, Benjamin E. & Katz, Michael L., 1994. "Corporate Diversification and Agency," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3568z5kq, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. John Christensen, 2010. "Conceptual frameworks of accounting from an information perspective," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 287-299.
    7. Anne Beyer & Ilan Guttman & Iván Marinovic, 2014. "Optimal Contracts with Performance Manipulation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 817-847, September.
    8. Christensen, Peter O. & Feltham, Gerald A. & Sabac, Florin, 2005. "A contracting perspective on earnings quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 265-294, June.
    9. Peter-J. Jost, 2023. "Auditing versus monitoring and the role of commitment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 463-496, June.
    10. Nafziger, Julia, 2009. "Timing of information in agency problems with hidden actions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 751-766, December.
    11. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Goldman, Eitan & Slezak, Steve L., 2006. "An equilibrium model of incentive contracts in the presence of information manipulation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 603-626, June.
    13. Nahum D. Melumad, 1989. "Asymmetric information and the termination of contracts in agencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 733-753, March.
    14. Bushman, Robert M. & Smith, Abbie J., 2001. "Financial accounting information and corporate governance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 237-333, December.
    15. Pierre Jinghong Liang, 2000. "Accounting Recognition, Moral Hazard, and Communication," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 458-490, September.
    16. Christian Laux & Volker Laux, 2006. "Performance Measurement and Information Production," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(3), pages 412-423, September.
    17. Anderson, Spencer B. & Brown, Jason L. & Hodder, Leslie & Hopkins, Patrick E., 2015. "The effect of alternative accounting measurement bases on investors’ assessments of managers’ stewardship," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 100-114.
    18. Hooper, Louise, 2008. "Paying for performance: Uncertainty, asymmetric information and the payment model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 157-163, January.
    19. Marinovic, Iván & Povel, Paul, 2017. "Competition for talent under performance manipulation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 1-14.
    20. Jeremy Bertomeu & Edwige Cheynel & Edward Xuejun Li & Ying Liang, 2021. "How Pervasive Is Earnings Management? Evidence from a Structural Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5145-5162, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:36:y:2019:i:1:p:50-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.