Houston research on asset valuation reveals importance of 'opinion shopping'

Houston voices

New research reveals that companies often “opinion shop” to shape their financial reality. Photo via rice.edu

Firms often have to estimate the “fair value” of their investments, meaning they have to declare what an asset is worth on the market. To avoid the potential for bias and manipulation, companies will use third-party services to provide an objective estimate of their assets’ fair value.

But nothing prevents a company from seeking multiple third-party estimates and choosing whichever one suits their purpose.

In a recent study, Shiva Sivaramakrishnan (Rice Business) and co-authors Minjae Koo (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) and Yuping Zhao (University of Houston) examine two motives for switching third-party evaluators: “opinion shopping” and “objective valuation.”

Firms that opinion shop are looking for a third-party source to make their investments look better on paper. For example, if Service A says an asset is worth $80 — and that means the company would have to take an accounting loss — the company might switch to Service B, which says the asset is worth $90. By using the higher estimate from Service B, the company avoids a loss.

Opinion shopping can be a dangerous practice, both on a macro level and for the specific firms that engage in it. Not only does it reduce the quality of fair value estimates for everyone, it means some company assets are potentially overvalued. And if those assets ever decline in value for real, the company will eventually take a loss.

Moreover, opinion shopping opens the door to managerial opportunism. If assets are valued more highly, managers are likely to receive credit and potentially use that perceived accomplishment to advance their careers.

There are reasons for companies to go the other way. In the hypothetical scenario above, our company might switch from Service B ($90) to Service A ($80) to receive a more accurate and objective estimate. The “objective valuation” motive helps companies meet regulatory requirements and ensure estimates reflect true market value. What’s more, the objective valuation motive helps curb managerial buccaneering.

The study looks at when and why life insurance companies will switch their third-party review service. The team finds that both motives — opinion shopping and objective valuation — are common. Sometimes companies want to better align their fair value estimates with what similar assets are trading for in the market. Other times, they want assets to look better on paper.

Of the two motives, opinion shopping is the more dominant, particularly when they are in conflict with each other. On the whole, evidence suggests that companies switch price sources strategically to inflate estimates and avoid losses, rather than to get more accurate estimates.

The study has implications for investors, regulators and researchers. “Opinion shopping” could be prevalent in non-financial industries, as well — especially public firms with capital market incentives. More disclosure around price sources could improve estimate reliability.

Future research could examine asset valuation practices and motives in other sectors such as banking, real estate and equity investments. Are some industries more prone to opinion shopping than others? What factors make opinion shopping or objective valuation more likely? Are there certain signals or patterns that indicate when a company is opinion shopping versus seeking objectivity?

Answers to these questions could help discern acceptable from unacceptable third-party source switching. And understanding if certain types of companies are more at risk could help regulators and auditors focus their efforts.

The bottom line:

Accurate accounting matters. While external sources are better for measuring the fair value of any given asset, companies can distort the very concept of fair value estimates by changing their source. More rigor, transparency and auditing around price sources could curb manipulation and improve estimate reliability.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Shiva Sivaramakrishnan, the Henry Gardiner Symonds Professor of Accounting at Rice Business.

Research shows that some corporate executives skew earnings to influence the market and inflate share price. Photo via Pexels

Rice University research finds market outliers at risk of misreporting

houston voices

Say a company called CoolConsumerGoodsCo has just released its quarterly earnings report, revealing significantly higher profits than its consumer goods industry counterparts.

That result might spur analysts to slap a buy rating on the stock and investors to snap up shares. In an ideal world, the market wouldn't have to consider the possibility that the numbers aren't legit — but then again, it's not an ideal world. (Enron, anyone?)

Rice Business professors Brian R. Rountree and Shiva Sivaramakrishnan, along with Andrew B. Jackson at UNSW in Australia, studied what makes business leaders more likely to engage in fraudulent earnings reporting. Specifically, they focused on the relationship between this kind of misrepresentation and the degree to which a company's earnings are in line with the rest of its industry — a variable the researchers term "co-movements."

Many people are familiar with a similar variable, calculated using stock returns often referred to as a company's beta. The authors adapted the stock return beta to corporate earnings to see how a company's earnings move with earnings at the industry level.

The researchers hypothesized that the less in sync a company's earnings are with its industry, the higher the chance a company's leaders will manipulate earnings reports. They started with the well-accepted premise that corporations try to skew earnings reports to influence the market. The primary motive is typically to raise the company's stock price, as when an executive tries to "choose a level of bias" that balances potential fallout of getting caught against the benefits of a higher stock price.

To test their prediction, the professors analyzed a sample of enforcement actions taken by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against companies for problematic financial reporting from 1970 to 2011 — although they noted that given the SEC's limited resources, the number of enforcement actions probably underestimates the actual amount of earnings manipulation in the market.

Their analysis revealed that firms with low earnings co-movements (meaning their earnings were out of sync with industry peers) were more likely to be accused by the SEC of reporting misdeeds. They concluded that the degree of earnings co-movement determines the probability of earnings manipulation. Put another way, earnings co-movements are a "causal factor" in the chances of earnings manipulations — and to a significant degree. The researchers found that firms who don't co-move with the market are more than 50 percent more likely to face an SEC enforcement action, compared with firms who are perfectly aligned with the market.

The researchers drilled deeper into the data to study whether the odds changed depending on the industry, since past research has indicated that the amount of competition in an industry works to constrain misreporting. That premise seems to hold true, the researchers concluded. In industries with more competitive markets, the impact of low co-movement on earnings manipulation is moderated.

They also studied whether the age of a firm played a part in the likelihood of earnings manipulation. Newer firms often rely more on stock compensation, which could be a motive for manipulating earnings reporting to drive up share price. Indeed, younger firms were more susceptible to misreporting when their earnings were out of whack with the rest of the marketplace.

Every firm faces some risk of misreporting, however. Even for public companies under analyst scrutiny, low co-movement proved to be a driver of earnings manipulation. But companies known for conservative reporting tend to be less likely to exaggerate their earnings, in general; these firms typically recognize losses in a more timely manner, the professors found.

These findings suggest a number of future lines of research. For example: When do executives underreport earnings? And can analyzing patterns related to cash flow reporting help better isolate earnings manipulation?

In the meantime, if you come across a company like CoolConsumerGoodsCo with an earnings report that's widely out of sync with the rest of its industry, you might think twice before rushing to buy in.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and is based on research from Brian R. Rountree, an associate professor of accounting at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, and Shiva Sivaramakrishnan is the Henry Gardiner Symonds Professor of Accounting at Rice Business.

In a recent study, a Rice Business professor found that board members actually need incentives — both short- and long-term — to act in stakeholders' best interests. Getty Images

Rice University research finds executive board members are driven by incentives

Houston voices

If you're a stockholder, you may envision your investment helmed by a benevolent, all-knowing board of directors, sitting around a long finely-grained wooden table, drinking coffee, their heads buried in PowerPoint charts as they labor to plot the best course for the company. Too often, however, you can't take for granted that a company's board will steer it wisely.

Companies choose directors because they offer rich and varied experience in the business world. Many who serve on boards, moreover, are CEOs of other corporations, or have headed big companies in the past. As of October 2018, for example, six of the 11 directors on Walmart's board and eight of 13 on AT&T's board hold CEO or CFO positions in other firms. So it's easy to assume that board members will act in the best interests of stockholders.

But in a recent study, Rice Business professor Shiva Sivaramakrishnan found that board members actually need incentives — both short- and long-term — to act in stakeholders' best interests.

Corporations usually compensate board members with stock options, grants, equity stakes, meeting fees, and cash retainers. How important is such compensation, and what sort of incentives do board members need to perform in the very best interests of a company? Sivaramakrishnan joined co-author George Drymiotes to trace how compensation impacts various aspects of board performance.

Recent literature in corporate governance has already stressed the need to give boards of directors explicit incentives in order to safeguard shareholder welfare. Some observers have even proposed requiring outside board members to hold substantial equity interests. The National Association of Corporate Directors, for example, recommended that boards pay their directors solely with cash or stock, with equity representing a substantial portion of the total, up to 100 percent.

To the extent that directors hold stock in a company, their actions are likely influenced by a variety of long-and short-term incentives. And while the literature has focused mainly on the useful long-term impact of equity awards, the consequences of short-term incentives haven't been as clear. Moreover, according to surveys, most directors view advising as their primary role. But this role also has received little attention.

To scrutinize these issues, the scholars used a simple model, which assumes the board of directors perform three roles: contracting, monitoring and consulting. The board contracts with management to provide productive input that improves a firm's performance. By monitoring management, the board improves the quality of the information conveyed to managers. By serving in a consulting role, the board makes managers more productive, which, in turn, means higher expected firm output.

This model allowed the scholars to better understand the relationship between the board of directors and the company's managers, as well as with shareholders. The former was particularly important to take into account, because conflict between a board and managers is typically unobservable and can be costly.

The results were surprising. Without short-term incentives, the researchers found, boards did not effectively fulfill their multiple roles. Long-term inducements could make a difference, they found, but only in some aspects of board performance.

While board members were better advisors when given long-term motivations, short-term incentives were better motivators for performing well in their other corporate governance roles, according to the research, which tied specific aspects of board compensation to particular board functions.

Restricted equity awards provided the necessary long-term incentives to improve the efficacy of the board's advisory role, the scholars found, but only the short-term incentives, awarding an unrestricted share or a bonus based on short-term performance, motivated conscientious monitoring.

The scholars also examined managerial misconduct. Board monitoring, they concluded, lowered the cost of preventing such wrongdoing — but only if the board had strong short-term incentives in place.

Even at the highest rungs of the corporate ladder, in other words, short-term self-interest is the greatest motivator. Maybe it's not surprising. In the corporate world, acting for one's own benefit is a given — so stockholders need to look more closely at those at the very top. Like everyone else, board directors need occasional brass rings within easy reach to do their best.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Shiva Sivaramakrishnan is the Henry Gardiner Symonds Professor in Accounting at the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston Innovation Awards to honor Wade Pinder as 2025 Trailblazer

And the award goes to...

On Nov. 13, we'll gather for the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards to celebrate the best and brightest in Houston innovation right now. And, as is tradition with the annual program, we'll honor one longstanding Houston innovator with the Trailblazer Award.

The award was established to recognize an individual who has left a profound impact on Houston's business and innovation ecosystem and is dedicated to continuing to support Houston and its entrepreneurs. The recipient is selected by our esteemed panel of judges from a pool of internal and external recommendations.

The 2025 Trailblazer Award recipient is Wade Pinder of Product Houston. A familiar face to those active in Houston's innovation sector, Pinder identifies as an "Ecosystem Wayseeker" and is the founder of Product Houston.

Pinder, a former product manager at Blinds.com, arrived in Houston in 2008 and has been deeply engaged in Houston’s startup and innovation scene since 2012. Over the years, he has supported hundreds of founders, product leaders, and community builders across the Houston area.

In 2023, he was honored as Mentor of the Year in the Houston Innovation Awards. Today, he fosters collaboration, clarity, and connection through his work at Product Houston, and he helps innovators find their place in the local sector via his monthly "Houston Ecosystem Mapping" sessions.

Read below for Pinder's insightful takes on the Houston innovation scene and what it means to blaze a new trail. Then, join us as we celebrate Pinder and all of our nominees and winners at the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs. Tickets are available now.

InnovationMap: Describe the growth of the Houston innovation ecosystem from your arrival in 2008 to now.

Wade Pinder: When I first arrived in Houston in 2008, the innovation ecosystem was more fragmented than it is today. Connecting with other innovators often meant attending a lot of hit-or-miss events. Over the years, it’s been incredible to see the network take shape and grow into a true community. I’ve had the privilege of being involved with several coworking spaces and accelerator programs along the way, and it’s been especially exciting to see Station Houston evolve into what is now the Ion District. What makes the Ion unique is how it blends openness and opportunity… ideas spill into and out of the space, and anyone can walk in, participate in programming, and find themselves in proximity to people who might help them take the next steps.

Additionally, the expansion of spaces like Texas Medical Center Innovation, Helix Park, The Cannon, and many others, have broadened Houston’s innovation landscape in powerful ways.

Today, when someone new moves to Houston and wants to plug into the startup and innovation scene, it’s much easier for them to find their way than when I moved here in 2008. I think that’s something Houston can really be proud of.

IM: As someone who engages with the broader Houston innovation community on a regular basis, what are the shared characteristics and traits that you see among its members?

WP: One of the things that makes Houston’s innovation community unique is how deeply it’s rooted in industry. So many of the innovators I meet come from within Houston’s major sectors, and they’ve seen firsthand where opportunities lie, which gives their innovation a certain practicality. They’re developing solutions that solve real, often complex, business and industry problems, not chasing trends or trying to create the next flashy consumer app.

What I admire most is that this community is growing in its understanding of the value of collaboration. They work with the systems and expertise that already exist, and find better ways to make them work together. Another shared trait I see across Houston’s innovators is a deep sense of curiosity and a drive to question the status quo while looking for better ways to build, improve, and solve.

IM: You’ve said, "Houston has Houston problems, and Houston needs Houston solutions." How do you see this taking shape in the innovation sector right now?

WP: When I first started getting connected to Houston’s startup and innovation scene in 2012, I noticed folks had a tendency to look at other cities and ask, "How can we do what they did?" Back then, we saw phrases like "Silicon Bayou" pop up, and while that enthusiasm was hopeful, it often discounted the things that make Houston unique. Over time, I’ve come to believe that the better question is: "What are we already great at, and how can we innovate from there?" The flip side of that question is to reflect on the things that hold us back as an ecosystem… identifying the friction points and finding practical ways to smooth them out.

From my time wandering around our ecosystem, I’ve come to understand Houston is great at infrastructure at scale, solving life-and-death challenges in the global spotlight, and "boldly going where no one’s gone before." These three things, in my opinion, capture the essence of Houston does best: We do hard things here.

What excites me today is that we’re applying innovation to those core strengths in ways that feel authentically Houston. One area I’m especially excited about is the emergence of the “New Space Economy,” captured beautifully in Wogbe Ofori’s thought piece “The Astropreneur’s Startup Journey Map.” It's a great example of how the next wave of space-related innovation might connect to Houston’s long-standing strengths in manufacturing, logistics, and problem-solving at scale.

Another challenge Houston faces is what I call a "proximity problem." Even when events are only a few miles apart, traffic can make it difficult for people to stay connected across the city. That’s why I’m so encouraged by the rise of what I think of as "intent-based gatherings" around the city: events designed with purpose, where people know they’ll find real connection and value once they arrive.

IM: Finally, what does being a "Trailblazer" mean to you?
WP: To me, trailblazing in the Houston innovation ecosystem means being willing to wander through the many different corners of the community and look for value in places we often overlook. It’s about showing up at events, community meetings, and pitch competitions — not just to participate, but to notice how each of these "nodes" in the ecosystem connects and adds value to the others.

Sometimes the trailblazer only walks a trail once: as they are discovering it. If you can help others see a newfound trail’s purpose and potential, it becomes a path others can follow more easily in the future. That’s the real work of a trailblazer: mapping connections, framing their value, and helping people recognize how those pathways strengthen the ecosystem as a whole.

In a broader sense, trailblazing is about seeing things not just as they are, but as they could be. Then taking the steps, however small, that make that vision real.

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston Community College, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

Houston-area VC funding sunk to 5-year low in Q3 2025, report says

by the numbers

Fundraising for Houston-area startups experienced a summertime slowdown, sinking to a five-year low in the third quarter, according to the latest PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor.

The PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor shows startups in the Houston metro area attracted $204.4 million in venture capital from June through August. That’s 55 percent below the total for the previous quarter and 51 percent below the total for the third quarter of 2024.

More telling than those figures is that the third-quarter haul dropped to its lowest total for Houston-area startups since the fourth quarter of 2020, when $133.4 million in VC was raised. That was the third full quarter after health officials declared the pandemic in the U.S.

In Q3 2025, AI accounted for nearly 40 percent of VC deal volume in the U.S., Kyle Stanford, director of U.S. venture research at PitchBook, said in the report. And through the first nine months of 2025, AI represented 64 percent of U.S. deal value.

VC deal activity “has been nearly steady, emphasizing a consistent influx of companies, especially at the pre-seed and seed stages,” Stanford said. “Large deals remain the primary driver of market deal value, with almost all of these deals focused on AI.”

Bobby Franklin, president and CEO of NVCA, said that while fundraising hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic highs, deal values are going up in sectors such as AI, manufacturing, robotics and space tech, many of which have already exceeded their investment totals for all of 2024.

Meet 6 of the fastest-growing scaleup companies in Houston right now

meet the finalists

From raising funding rounds to earning FDA acceptance, some of Houston's most innovative companies have reached major milestones this year.

The 2025 Houston Innovation Awards will recognize their progress by bringing back our Scaleup of the Year category for the second year. The award honors an innovative later-stage startup that's recently reached a significant milestone in company growth.

Six breakthrough businesses have been named finalists for the 2025 award. They range from climatetech startups to a biotech company developing new drugs for neurodegenerative diseases and more.

Read more about these businesses and their impressive growth below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled at our live awards ceremony.

Tickets are now on sale for this exclusive event celebrating all things Houston Innovation. Corporate 10-packs, featuring reserved seating and custom branding, and individual tickets are still available. Secure your seats today.

Coya Therapeutics

Clinical-stage biotechnology company Coya Therapeutics (NASDAQ: COYA) has developed COYA-302 that enhances anti-inflammatory T cell function and suppresses harmful immune activity. The drug candidate is being advanced for several neurodegenerative diseases—including ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and frontotemporal dementia—and has demonstrated promising reductions in neuroinflammation in preclinical and early clinical studies, according to the company.

Coya, founded in 2021, received FDA acceptance for its investigational new drug application for COYA-30 this summer. It closed its IPO in January 2023 for more than $15 million and added $26 million in PIPE funding that same year. Last year, the company secured an additional $15 million in PIPE funding.

Fervo Energy

Houston-based Fervo Energy is working to provide 24/7 carbon-free energy through the development of cost-competitive geothermal power. The company is developing its flagship Cape Station geothermal power project in Utah, which is expected to generate 400 megawatts of clean energy for the grid. The first phase of the project will supply 100 megawatts of power beginning in 2026. The second phase is scheduled to come online by 2028.

The company raised $205.6 million in capital to help finance the project earlier this year and fully contracted the project's capacity with the addition of a major power purchase agreement from Shell. Founded in 2017 by CEO Tim Latimer and CTO Jack Norbeck, Fervo is now a unicorn, meaning its valuation as a private company has surpassed $1 billion. In March, Axios reported Fervo is targeting a $2 billion to $4 billion valuation in an IPO.

Koda Health

Houston-based Koda Health has developed an advance care planning platform (ACP) that allows users to document and share their care preferences, goals and advance directives for health systems. The web-based platform guides patients through values-based decisions with interactive tools and generates state-specific, legally compliant documents that integrate seamlessly with electronic health record systems. The company also added kidney action planning to its suite of services for patients with serious illnesses last year.

Koda Health was founded out of the TMC's Biodesign Fellowship in 2020 by CEO Tatiana Fofanova, chief medical officer Dr. Desh Mohan, and chief technology officer Katelin Cherry. The company raised a $7 million series A earlier this year, and also announced major partnerships and integrations with Epic, Guidehealth, Medical Home Network, Privia Health and others.

Mati Carbon

Houston climatetech company Mati Carbon removes carbon through its Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) program that works with agricultural farms in Africa and India. Mati says the farmers it partners with are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The nonprofit won the $50 million grand prize in the XPRIZE Carbon Removal competition, backed by Elon Musk’s charitable organization, The Musk Foundation, earlier this year.

Mati Carbon scaled operations in India, Zambia, and Tanzania this year and has advanced its proprietary measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) platform, known as matiC, enabling seamless field data capture, chain-of-custody and carbon accounting at scale. The company was founded in 2022 by co-directors Shantanu Agarwal and Rwitwika Bhattacharya.

Molecule

Houston-based Molecule Software has developed an energy trading risk management (ETRM) platform that allows companies trading power, oil and gas, biofuels, renewables and more stay ahead as the markets evolve.

The company closed a Series B round earlier this year for an undisclosed amount. Sameer Soleja, founder and CEO of Molecule, said at the time that the funding would allow the company to "double down on product innovation, grow our team, and reach even more markets." The company was founded in 2012 by CEO Sameer Soleja and participated in the Surge Accelerator the same year.

Utility Global

Houston-based Utility Global has developed its proprietary eXERO technology that produces low-cost, clean hydrogen from water and industrial off-gases without requiring grid electricity.

First founded in 2018 by CEO Parker Meeks, the company participated in Greentown Labs and the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship programs. It raised a $55 million funding round earlier this year and launched commercial partnerships with ArcelorMittal Brazil and Hanwha Group in South Korea to deploy its hydrogen solutions at scale.

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston Community College, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

View All Listings