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

Houston femtech co. debuts first holistic wellness suite following rebrand

work perks

Houston-based femtech company Work&, previously Work&Mother, debuted new lactation suites and its first employee wellness space at MetroNational’s Memorial City Plazas this month.

The 1,457-square-foot Work& space features three lactation rooms and five wellness suites, the latter of which are intended to offer employees a private space and time for telehealth appointments, meditation, prayer, and other needs. The hybrid space, designed by Houston-based Inventure, represents Work&'s shift to offer an array of holistic health and wellness solutions to landlords for tenants.

Work& rebranded from Work&Mother earlier this year. The company was previously focused on outfitting commercial buildings with lactation accommodations for working parents, equipped with a hospital-grade pump, milk storage bags, sanitizing wipes, and other supplies. While Work& will still offer these services through its Work&Mother branch, the addition of its Work&Wellbeing arm allows the company to also "address the broader wellness needs of all employees," according to an announcement made on LinkedIn.

"We are thrilled to bring Work&Mother and Work&Wellbeing to The Plazas," Jules Lairson, co-founder and COO of Work&, said in a news release. “This partnership brings every stakeholder together – employees, employers and landlords all benefit from this kind of forward-thinking tenant experience. We are excited to launch our Work&Wellbeing concept with MetroNational to ensure that all employees have their wellness needs met with private, clean, quiet spaces for use during the workday.”

The new space is available to all tenants across Memorial City Plazas, comprised of three office towers totaling 1 million square feet of Class A office space. In addition to the lactation and wellness suites, the space also features custom banquettes, private lounge seating and phone booths.

“As a family-owned and operated company, MetroNational is deeply committed to fostering a workplace that supports both productivity and the well-being of all our tenants,” Anne Marie Ratliff, vice president of asset management for MetroNational, added in the release. “Partnering with Work& reinforces this commitment, enhancing our workplace experience and setting a new standard for tenant amenities.”

Work& has five Houston locations and several others in major metros, including New York, Austin, D.C., Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Miami. According to its website, the company will also introduce a Work&Wellbeing suite in New York.

Abbey Donnell spoke with InnovationMap on the Houston Innovators Podcast about why she founded the company and its plans for growth in 2021. Click here to learn more.

9 Houston universities make U.S. News' list of best grad schools 2025

Top of the class

Nine Houston universities have climbed through the ranks in U.S. News & World Report’s recently released report of the best graduate schools nationwide for 2025. Several graduate programs also appeared among the top 10 in a Texas-wide comparison.

U.S. News published its annual national "Best Graduate Schools" rankings on April 8. They look at several programs including business, education, engineering, fine arts, health, and many others.

For the 2025 report, the publication added new Ph.D. social sciences and humanities program rankings in English, history, political science and sociology for the first time since 2021. U.S. News also ranked graduate economics and psychology programs in the social sciences and the humanities for the first time since 2022.

Among the newcomers are Houston Christian University and Texas Southern University.

Here's how the nine local schools ranked, statewide and nationally, and how they compared with last year's national ranking:

University of Houston

  • No. 4 best graduate engineering school in Texas; No. 72 nationally
  • No. 5 best graduate education school in Texas; No. 81 nationally (down from No. 63 last year)
  • No. 5 best law school in Texas; No. 63 nationally (up from No. 68)

The University of Houston Law Center has the No. 9 best health law program in the nation, and ranked No. 15 for its legal writing program. The university's part-time MBA program ranked No. 38 nationally

University of Houston, Clear Lake

  • No. 12 best graduate education school in Texas; No. 166 nationally

The Clear Lake branch of the University of Houston tied for No. 166 for its part-time MBA program.

Houston Christian University

  • No. 21 best graduate education school in Texas; tied for No. 234-258 nationally

University of Texas Health Science Center

  • No. 1 best Doctor of Nursing Practice program in Texas; No. 33 nationally (up from No. 45)
  • No. 2 best graduate nursing program in Texas; No. 41 nationally (down from No. 31)

Prairie View A&M University, Northwest Houston Center

  • No. 5 best graduate nursing program in Texas; No. 104 nationally (up from No. 117)
  • No. 7 best Doctor of Nursing Practice program in Texas; tied for No. 143-158 nationally

Rice University

  • No. 2 best graduate business school in Texas; No. 29 nationally (unchanged)
  • No. 3 best graduate engineering school in Texas; No. 26 nationally

Rice's entrepreneurship program is the 9th best in the country, and its part-time MBA program ranked 13th nationally. The George R. Brown School of Engineering earned nods for its No. 10-ranking biomedical engineering and environmental engineering programs.

University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

  • No. 5 best Doctor of Nursing Practice program in Texas; No. 76 nationally

South Texas College of Law Houston

  • No. 7 best law school in Texas; No. 138 nationally

Out of the 11 law programs ranked by U.S. News, the South Texas College of Law performed the best for its trial advocacy (No. 12), dispute resolution law (No. 23), and legal writing (No. 51) programs.

Texas Southern University

  • No. 10 best law school in Texas; tied for No. 178-195 nationally

More specifically, TSU has the 64th best trial advocacy law program in the nation, U.S. News said.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, CultureMap.com.

VC firm partners with Rice Nexus to open first global office

strategic partnership

Luxembourg-based venture capital and advisory firm MoreThan Capital (MTC) has established its first global office at the new Rice Nexus in Houston’s Ion District as part of a strategic partnership aimed at fostering entrepreneurship and growing Houston as an innovation hub.

MTC has committed to offering its “time, mentorship, industry expertise and global connections” to Rice Nexus. The state-of-the-art Rice Nexus, which opened earlier this year, aims to support and provide resources for ventures that are looking to scale and have "artificial intelligence (AI) as a central pillar of its innovation strategy," according to a statement from Rice.

“The Rice Nexus is a launchpad for world-changing ideas, and this partnership with MoreThan Capital is a key step in realizing that vision,” Sanjoy Paul, executive director of the Rice Nexus, said in a news release. “By combining Rice’s research and entrepreneurial talent with MTC’s global network and mentorship, we are creating an unparalleled engine for innovation that starts in Houston and reaches the world.”

MoreThan Capital has over 100 limited partners, including senior executives and professional investors, based in more than 35 countries.

“Establishing our first global office at the Rice Nexus within the Ion District is a significant milestone for MoreThan Capital,” Guillermo Ruiz, general partner of MoreThan Capital, said in a news release. “We are dedicated to partnering with top-tier academic institutions like Rice University and aligning with organizations that share our core values of trust, engagement and impact.”

The announcement comes just a few weeks after Rice Nexus announced its partnership with Google Public Sector to launch the new Rice AI Venture Accelerator, or RAVA.