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 falls from top 50 in global ranking of 'World's Best Cities'

Rankings & Reports

Houston is no longer one of the top 50 best cities in the world, according to a prestigious annual report by Canada-based real estate and tourism marketing firm Resonance Consultancy.

The newest "World's Best Cities" list dropped Houston from No. 40 last year to No. 58 for 2026.

The experts at Resonance Consultancy annually compare the world's top 100 cities with metropolitan populations of at least 1 million residents or more based on the relative qualities of livability, "lovability," and prosperity. The firm additionally collaborated with AI software company AlphaGeo to determine each city's "exposure to risk, adaptation capacity," and resilience to change.

The No. 1 best city in the world is London, with New York (No. 2), Paris (No. 3), Tokyo (No. 4), and Madrid (No. 5) rounding out the top five in 2026.

Houston at least didn't rank as poorly as it did in 2023, when the city surprisingly plummeted as the 66th best city in the world. In 2022, Houston ranked 42nd on the list.

Despite dropping 18 places, Resonance Consultancy maintains that Houston "keeps defying gravity" and is a "coveted hometown for the best and brightest on earth."

The report cited the Houston metro's ever-growing population, its relatively low median home values ($265,000 in 2024), and its expanding job market as top reasons for why the city shouldn't be overlooked.

"Chevron’s shift of its headquarters from California to Houston, backed by $100 million in renovations, crowns relocations drawn by record 2024 Port Houston throughput of more than four million containers and a projected 71,000 new jobs in 2025," the report said.

The report also draws attention to the city's diversity, spanning from the upcoming grand opening of the long-awaited Ismaili Center, to the transformation of several industrial buildings near Memorial City Mall into a mixed-use development called Greenside.

"West Houston’s Greenside will convert 35,000 square feet of warehouses into a retail, restaurant and community hub around a one-acre park by 2026, while America’s inaugural Ismaili Center remains on schedule for later this year," the report said. "The gathering place for the community and home for programs promoting understanding of Islam and the Ismaili community is another cultural jewel for the country’s most proudly diverse major city."

In Resonance Consultancy's separate list ranking "America's Best Cities," Houston fell out of the top 10 and currently ranks as the 13th best U.S. city.

Elsewhere in Texas, Austin and Dallas also saw major declines in their standings for 2026. Austin plummeted from No. 53 last year to No. 87 for 2026, and Dallas fell from No. 53 to No. 78.

"In this decade of rapid transformation, the world’s cities are confronting challenges head‑on, from climate resilience and aging infrastructure to equitable growth," the report said. "The pandemic, long forgotten but still a sage oracle, exposed foundational weaknesses – from health‑care capacity to housing affordability. Yet, true to their dynamic nature, the leading cities are not merely recovering, but setting the pace, defining new paradigms of innovation, sustainability and everyday livability."

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Waymo self-driving robotaxis will launch in Houston in 2026

Coming Soon

Houston just cleared a major lane to the future. Waymo has announced the official launch of its self-driving robotaxi service in the Bayou City, beginning with employee-only operations this fall ahead of a public launch in early 2026.

The full rollout will include three Texas cities, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, along with Miami and Orlando, Florida. Currently, the company operates in the San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, with service available in Austin and Atlanta through Uber.

Before letting its technology loose on a city, Waymo first tests the routes with human drivers. Once each locale is mapped, the cars can begin driving independently. Unique situations are flagged by specialists, and engineers evaluate performance in virtual replicas of each city.

“Waymo’s quickly entering a number of new cities in the U.S. and around the world, and our approach to every new city is consistent,” explained the announcement. “We compare our driving performance against a proven baseline to validate the performance of the Waymo Driver and identify any unique local characteristics.”

The launch puts Waymo ahead of Tesla. Elon Musk’s Austin-based carmaker has made a lot of hullabaloo about autonomy being the future of the company, but has yet to launch its service on a wide scale.

Waymo started testing San Antonio’s roadways in May as part of a multi-city “road trip,” which also included Houston. The company says its measured approach to launches helps alleviate local concern over safety and other issues.

“The future of transportation is accelerating, and we are driving it forward with a commitment to quality and safety,” Waymo wrote. “Our rigorous process of continuous iteration, validation, and local engagement ensures that we put communities first as we expand.”

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Shipley Donuts launches AI-powered ordering assistant

fresh tech

Popular Houston-born doughnut chain Shipley Donuts has added a first-of-its-kind AI-powered assistant to its online ordering platform.

The new assistant can create personalized order recommendations based on individual or group preferences, according to a news release from the company. Unlike standard chatbox features, the new assistant makes custom recommendations based on multiple customer factors, including budgetary habits, individual flavor preferences and order size.

"We're not just adding AI for the sake of innovation — we're solving real customer pain points by making ordering more intuitive, personalized and efficient," Kerry Leo, Shipley Vice President of Technology, said in the release.

The system also works for larger events, as it can make individual orders and catering recommendations for corporate events and meetings by suggesting quantities and assortments based on group size, event type and budget.

According to Shipley, nearly 1 in 4 guests have completed orders with the new AI technology since it launched on its website.

“The integration of the AI ordering assistant into our refreshed website represents a significant leap forward in how restaurant brands can leverage technology to enhance the customer experience,” Leo added in the release.

View All Listings