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

Tech giant Apple doubles down on Houston with new production facility

coming soon

Tech giant Apple announced that it will double the size of its Houston manufacturing footprint as it brings production of its Mac mini to the U.S. for the first time.

The company plans to begin production of its compact desktop computer at a new factory at Apple’s Houston manufacturing site later this year. The move is expected to create thousands of jobs in the Houston area, according to Apple.

Last year, the Cupertino, California-based company announced it would open a 250,000-square-foot factory to produce servers for its data centers in the Houston area. The facility was originally slated to open in 2026, but Apple reports it began production ahead of schedule in 2025.

The addition of the Mac mini operations at the site will bring the footprint to about 500,000 square feet, the Houston Chronicle reports. The New York Times previously reported that Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Foxconn would be involved in the Houston factory.

Apple also announced plans to open a 20,000-square-foot Advanced Manufacturing Center in Houston later this year. The project is currently under construction and will "provide hands-on training in advanced manufacturing techniques to students, supplier employees, and American businesses of all sizes," according to the announcement. Apple opened a similar Apple Manufacturing Academy in Detroit last year.

Apple doubles down on Houston with new production facility, training center Photo courtesy Apple.

“Apple is deeply committed to the future of American manufacturing, and we’re proud to significantly expand our footprint in Houston with the production of Mac mini starting later this year,” Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said in the news release. “We began shipping advanced AI servers from Houston ahead of schedule, and we’re excited to accelerate that work even further.”

Apple's Houston expansion is part of a $600 billion commitment the company made to the U.S. in 2025.

Houston energy trailblazer Fervo taps into hottest reservoir to date

Heating Up

Things are heating up at Houston-based geothermal power company Fervo Energy.

Fervo recently drilled its hottest well so far at a new geothermal site in western Utah. Fewer than 11 days of drilling more than 11,000 feet deep at Project Blanford showed temperatures above 555 degrees Fahrenheit, which exceeds requirements for commercial viability. Fervo used proprietary AI-driven analytics for the test.

Hotter geothermal reservoirs produce more energy and improve what’s known as energy conversion efficiency, which is the ratio of useful energy output to total energy input.

“Fervo’s exploration strategy has always been underpinned by the seamless integration of cutting-edge data acquisition and advanced analytics,” Jack Norbeck, Fervo’s co-founder and chief technology officer, said in a news release. “This latest ultra-high temperature discovery highlights our team’s ability to detect and develop EGS sweet spots using AI-enhanced geophysical techniques.”

Fervo says an independent review confirms the site’s multigigawatt potential.

The company has increasingly tapped into hotter and hotter geothermal reservoirs, going from 365 degrees at Project Red to 400 degrees at Cape Station and now more than 555 degrees at Blanford.

The new site expands Fervo’s geologic footprint. The Blanford reservoir consists of sedimentary formations such as sandstones, claystones and carbonates, which can be drilled more easily and cost-effectively than more commonly targeted granite formations.

Fervo ranks among the top-funded startups in the Houston area. Since its founding in 2017, the company has raised about $1.5 billion. In January, Fervo filed for an IPO that would value the company at $2 billion to $3 billion, according to

Axios Pro.

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

11 Houston researchers named to Rice innovation cohort

top of class

The Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie) has named 11 students and researchers with breakthrough ideas to its 2026 Rice Innovation Fellows cohort.

The program, first launched in 2022, aims to support Rice Ph.D. students and postdocs in turning their research into real-world ventures. Participants receive $10,000 in translational research funding, co-working space and personalized mentorship.

The eleven 2026 Innovation Fellows are:

Ehsan Aalaei, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Michael King Laboratory

Aalaei is developing new therapies to prevent the spread of cancer.

Matt Lee, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Caleb Bashor Laboratory

Lee’s work uses AI to design the genetic instructions for more effective therapies.

Thomas Howlett, Bioengineering, Postdoctoral 2028

Professor Kelsey Swingle Laboratory

Howlett is developing a self-administered, nonhormonal treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Jonathan Montes, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2025

Professor Jessica Butts Laboratory

Montes and his team are developing a fast-acting, long-lasting nasal spray to relieve chronic and acute anxiety.

Siliang Li, BioSciences, Postdoctoral 2025

Professor Caroline Ajo-Franklin Laboratory

Li is developing noninvasive devices that can quickly monitor gut health signals.

Gina Pizzo, Statistics, Lecturer

Pizzo’s research uses data modeling to forecast crop performance and soil health.

Alex Sadamune, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Chong Xie Laboratory

Sadamune is working to scale the production of high-precision neural implants.

Jaeho Shin, Chemistry, Postdoctoral 2027

Professor James M. Tour Laboratory

Shin is developing next-generation semiconductor and memory technologies to advance computing and AI.

Will Schmid, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Postdoctoral 2025

Professor Alessandro Alabastri Laboratory

Schmid is developing scalable technologies to recover critical minerals from high-salinity resources.

Khadija Zanna, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ph.D. 2026

Professor Akane Sano Laboratory

Zanna is building machine learning tools to help companies deploy advanced AI in compliance with complex global regulations.

Ava Zoba, Materials Science and Nano Engineering, Ph.D. 2029

Professor Christina Tringides Laboratory

Zoba is designing implantable devices to improve the monitoring of brain function following tumor-removal surgery.

According to Rice, its Innovation Fellows have gone on to raise over $30 million and join top programs, including The Activate Fellowship, Chain Reaction Innovations Fellowship, the Texas Medical Center’s Cancer Therapeutics Accelerator and the Rice Biotech Launch Pad. Past participants include ventures like Helix Earth Technologies and HEXASpec.

“These fellows aren’t just advancing science — they’re building the future of industry here at Rice,” Kyle Judah, Lilie’s executive director, said in a news release. “Alongside their faculty members, they’re stepping into the uncertainty of turning research into real-world solutions. That commitment is rare, and it’s exactly why Lilie and Rice are proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them and nurture their ambition to take on civilization-scale problems that truly matter.”

View All Listings