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 health tech company announces $10M in fresh funding to bolster customer care

cha-ching

Roshal Health, a Katy-based provider of ultrasound and echocardiogram services for health care facilities, has secured $10 million in structured equity financing.

New York City-based investment firm Catalio Capital Management led the financing, with participation from Austin-based investment firm Green Street Impact Partners.

“This is an important next step in our journey and will further bolster our ability to meet customer care delivery targets with cost-efficient and high-quality diagnostic services,” Michael Hall, CEO of Roshal Health, says in a news release.

Roshal Health provides on-site and on-demand ultrasound and echocardiogram services to ERs, micro-hospitals, rural hospitals, and offsite health care facilities. The company, founded in 2005, employs more than 300 people.

John Henry Iucker, general partner and head of credit at Catalio, says the Roshal Health financing deal “demonstrates alternative financing models as an attractive solution for dynamic and fast-growing companies in a challenging fundraising environment.”

Health care professionals use ultrasound to evaluate, diagnose, and treat medical conditions. For example, a doctor might order an ultrasound to find out whether a lump in someone’s breast is cancerous. Or an obstetrician-gynecologist might order an ultrasound to monitor the health of a fetus.

Meanwhile, health care providers most commonly use electrocardiograms, which are ultrasound procedures, to capture images of a patient’s heart and heart valves.

Texas-based 'hop-on' jet service offers exclusive eclipse flight flown by NASA pilot

we're soaring

With Texas set to be the prime location for the Great North American Solar Eclipse, airlines are lining up to offer the best vantage point and that includes JSX: The private carrier is offering a once-in-a-lifetime in-flight experience to 12 people, to join a specialty flight from Dallas on Monday, April 8.

This special two-hour flight will fly the path of totality during its peak shadow casting, led by former NASA astronaut and JSX pilot Bill Gregory. Those onboard will receive eclipse viewing glasses for safe solar viewing, themed Solar Eclipse cocktails, and complimentary sun protection.

Flight 4824 will depart on April 8 from JSX’s dedicated hangar at Dallas-Love Field at 1 pm. Every occupant will get their own dedicated window seat for the best chance of viewing the total solar eclipse as the plane travels within the path of totality, circling Dallas, and landing back at the hangar by 3 pm.

Space enthusiasts looking for a unique vantage point from 30,000 feet up can enter the sweepstakes online now until March 14, for a free chance to view the solar phenomenon with a guest.

In addition to the sweepstakes, the hop-on air carrier is partnering with Dallas Love Field’s Frontiers of Flight Museum to identify two children in the local Texas community with an interest in STEM to experience the rare spectacle with a guardian.

Previously serving as NASA’s Space Shuttle Endeavour pilot and having completed 262 orbits and traveling nearly seven million miles in space, JSX’s Bill Gregory will navigate the solar eclipse with expert commentary throughout the flight. Before joining the JSX team, Bill also served as a former U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and has received numerous accolades for his professional achievements including the NASA Space Flight Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, and more.

“With Dallas taking claim as the biggest city in the path of totality, we are thrilled to make this ultra premium and rare viewing opportunity a reality via JSX,” says CEO Alex Wilcox. “We’re committed to prioritizing safe, simple, joy-filled flights for all and are ecstatic to be able to provide travelers with the ultimate JSX experience in tandem with this once-in-a-lifetime celestial event.”

Other airlines offering special eclipse flights include Southwest Airlines and Delta.

JSX is the flight experience that offers convenience at an accessible price point, from checking in at a dedicated hangar 20 minutes prior to departure to flying on a sleek 30-seat jet, to business class legroom, frictionless security, free high speed Starlink Wi-Fi, and in-seat power.

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Houston-based, female-focused VC closes $36M fund

fresh funding

A women-led venture capital group based in Houston has closed its second fund to continue its mission of supporting female-founded startups in fintech, commerce, and care.

The Artemis Fund announced its $36 million second fund this month. Co-founded in 2019 by General Partner Stephanie Campbell, General Partner Diana Murakhovskaya, and Venture Partner Leslie Goldman Tepper, the firm has invested in more than 20 female-led startups — with over 60 percent with Black, Latinx, or immigrant leadership.

"Many funds have come to market that focus on diverse founders. Few are also funding the technology to address key barriers faced by overlooked businesses, communities, and families in the U.S.," Artemis leadership writes in a news release.

"Artemis invests in the big personal, every day, economic problems that Silicon Valley doesn’t understand or know how to solve," the release continues. "We see massive opportunity in what many VCs will quickly write off as too small, too fragmented, and too hard to solve. If it keeps families and small business owners up at night, we are likely backing a company solving it."

Artemis Fund II includes support from limited partners Bank of America, Bank of Montreal, TIAA Nuveen’s Churchill Asset Management, Texas Capital Bank, Amazon, The Rockwell Fund, and Ballentine Partners.

“The Artemis Fund is not only breaking down barriers themselves, but they are also investing in companies looking to catalyze change," Hong Ogle, Houston president at Bank of America, says in the release. "Artemis keenly understands how to identify and support diverse entrepreneurs, which ultimately helps us toward achieving our goal to advance economic opportunity for all our communities."

The second fund has already made investments in five startups:

  • Alameda, California-based Hello Divorce, a tech-enabled guide to divorce with research, planning, therapy, and community support.
  • Gemist, based in Los Angeles, provides tech tools to jewelers.
  • West Palm Beach, Florida-based Max Retail, a platform to sell leftover inventory.
  • Payverse, headquartered in Sherman Oaks, California, is a cross border payment processor leveraging their modern processing platform.
  • New York-based Builder's Patch, a software platform that streamlines the process to finance the development and preservation of affordable multifamily housing for CRE lenders and developers.

View All Listings