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

NASA names new chief astronaut based in Houston

new hire

NASA has a new chief astronaut. Scott Tingle, stationed at the space agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, assumed the post Nov. 10.

Tingle succeeds NASA astronaut Joe Acaba, who had been chief astronaut since February 2023. Acaba now works on the staff of the Johnson Space Center’s director.

As chief astronaut, Tingle runs NASA’s Astronaut Office. His job includes developing astronauts’ flight crew operations and assigning crews for space missions, such as Artemis missions to the moon.

Tingle, a former captain in the Navy, was named a NASA astronaut candidate in 2009. He has logged over 4,500 flight hours in more than 50 aircraft.

Tingle was a flight engineer aboard the International Space Station, where he spent 168 days in orbit during two expeditions that launched in December 2017. Since returning to Earth, he has held various roles in the Astronaut Office, including mission support, technical leadership and crew readiness.

Before joining NASA, Tingle worked in El Segundo, California, on the technical staff of The Aerospace Corp., a nonprofit that supports U.S. space programs.

Tingle recalls expressing his desire to be an astronaut when he was 10 years old. It took him four tries to be accepted by NASA as an astronaut candidate.

“The first time I figured it was kind of too early. The second application, they sent out some feelers, and that was about it. Put in my third application, and got a couple of calls, but it didn’t quite happen,” Tingle said in an article published on the website of Purdue University, his alma mater.

ExxonMobil officially pauses plans for $7B Baytown hydrogen plant

Change of Plans

As anticipated, Spring-based oil and gas giant ExxonMobil has officially paused plans to build a low-hydrogen plant in Baytown, Chairman and CEO Darren Woods told Reuters in late November.

“The suspension of the project, which had already experienced delays, reflects a wider slowdown in efforts by traditional oil and gas firms to transition to cleaner energy sources as many of the initiatives struggle to turn a profit,” Reuters reported.

Woods signaled during ExxonMobil’s second-quarter earnings call that the company was weighing whether it would move forward with the proposed $7 billion plant.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act created a new 10-year incentive, the 45V tax credit, for production of clean hydrogen. But under President Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the window for starting construction of low-carbon hydrogen projects that qualify for the tax credit has narrowed. The Inflation Reduction Act mandated that construction start by 2033. But the Big Beautiful Bill switched the construction start time to early 2028.

“While our project can meet this timeline, we’re concerned about the development of a broader market, which is critical to transition from government incentives,” ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s second-quarter earnings call.

Woods had said ExxonMobil was figuring out whether a combination of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture projects and the revised 45V tax credit would enable a broader market for low-carbon hydrogen.

“If we can’t see an eventual path to a market-driven business, we won’t move forward with the [Baytown] project,” Woods said.

“We knew that helping to establish a brand-new product and a brand-new market initially driven by government policy would not be easy or advance in a straight line,” he added.

ExxonMobil announced in 2022 that it would build the low-carbon hydrogen plant at its refining and petrochemical complex in Baytown. The company has said the plant is slated to go online in 2027 and 2028.

ExxonMobil had said the Baytown plant would produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day made from natural gas, and capture and store more than 98 percent of the associated carbon dioxide. The plant would have been capable of storing as much as 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com; it was updated to include new information about the plant in December 2025.

8 can't-miss Houston business and innovation events for December

where to be

Editor's note: Houston’s innovation scene is loading up the calendar before the holidays. From climatetech pitch days to the return of favorite festive shindigs, here's what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional event listings.

Dec. 3 — SouthWest-Midwest National Pediatric Device Innovation Consortium

This annual event brings together members, colleagues and guests of the FDA-supported pediatric consortium who are dedicated to assisting device innovators throughout the lifecycle in delivering innovative solutions to patients. Featured speakers include Dr. Danielle Gottlieb from Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Balakrishna Haridas from Texas A&M University and Dr. Chester Koh from Texas Children’s Hospital.

This event is Wednesday, Dec. 3, from 3:30-8 p.m. at Texas A&M EnMed Tower. Register here.

Dec. 4 — Resiliency & Adaptation Sector Pitch Day: Scaling Solutions to Address Climate Disruption

Join innovators, industry leaders, investors and policymakers as they explore breakthrough climate and energy technologies at Greentown's latest installment of its Sector Pitch Day series, focused on resiliency and adaptation. Hear from Adrian Trömel, Chief Innovation Officer at Rice University; Eric Willman, Executive Director of the Rice WaTER Institute; pitches from 10 Greentown startups and more.

This event is Thursday, Dec. 4, from 1-3:30 p.m. at the Ion. The Ion Holiday Block Party follows. Register here.

Dec. 4 — The Ion District Holiday Block Party

The Ion District, Rice Alliance and Greentown Labs will celebrate the season during the Ion District Holiday Block Party. Expect to find local bites, drinks, music and meaningful connections across Houston’s innovation ecosystem. Guests are invited to participate in Operation Love’s holiday toy drive supporting local families.

This event is Thursday, Dec. 4, from 4-7 p.m. Register here.

Dec. 8 — Pumps & Pipes Annual Event 2025

The annual gathering brings together cross-industry leaders in aerospace, energy and medicine for engaging discussions and networking opportunities. Connor Grennan, Chief AI Architect at the NYU Stern School of Business, will present this year's keynote address, entitled "Practical Strategies to Increase Productivity." Other sessions will feature leaders from Cena Research Institute, NASA Ames Research Center, ExxonMobil, Southwest Airlines and more.

This event is Monday, Dec. 8, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m., at TMC Helix Park. Register here.

Dec. 9 — Jingle and Mingle

Don your ugliest sweater and snap a pic with Startup Santa! Bayou City Startups, Rocket Network, Founder Institute and Energytech Nexus are bringing back their popular Jingle Mingle for the third year. Network and celebrate with founders, community stakeholders and others in Houston's innovation scene. Donations to the Houston Food Bank are encouraged in place of tickets.

This event is Tuesday, Dec. 9, from 5-7 p.m., at the Solarium in Midtown. Register here.

Dec. 9 — European Innovation Spotlight

Celebrate European cooperation and innovation with the European Innovation Council during an exclusive demo night and networking event at Greentown Labs. Hear from 15 EIC-backed founders supported by the European Union with top-class climatetech technologies, listen to a fireside chat and engage in a networking event following the pitches.

This event is Tuesday, Dec. 9, from 4:30-7 p.m., at the Ion. Register here.

Dec. 9-10 — Energy LIVE

Energy LIVE is Reuters Events' flagship ConfEx that brings the full energy ecosystem together under one roof to solve the industry's most urgent commercial and operational challenges. The event will feature 3,000-plus senior executives across three strategic stages, a showcase of 75-plus exhibitors and six strategic content pillars.

This event is Dec. 9-10 at NRG Park. Register here.

Dec. 15 — Innov8 Hub Pitch Day

Hear pitches from members of the latest Innov8 Hub Innovators to Founders cohort, which empowers academic scientists and innovators to become successful startup founders. Meet and network with the founders over light bites and drinks at a reception following the pitch competition.

This event is Monday, Dec. 15, at the Innovation Center at UH Technology Bridge (Bldg. 4). Register here.

View All Listings