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

Rice launches 'brain economy' initiative at World Economic Forum

brain health

Rice University has launched an initiative that will position “brain capital” as a key asset in the 21st century.

Rice rolled out the Global Brain Economy Initiative on Jan. 21 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“This initiative positions brain capital, or brain health and brain skills, at the forefront of global economic development, particularly in the age of artificial intelligence,” the university said in a news release.

The Rice-based initiative, whose partners are the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and the Davos Alzheimer’s Collaborative, aligns with a recent World Economic Forum and McKinsey Health Institute report titled “The Human Advantage: Stronger Brains in the Age of AI,” co-authored by Rice researcher Harris Eyre. Eyre is leading the initiative.

“With an aging population and the rapid transformation of work and society driven by AI, the urgency has never been greater to focus on brain health and build adaptable human skills—both to support people and communities and to ensure long-term economic stability,” says Amy Dittmar, a Rice provost and executive vice president for academic affairs.

This initiative works closely with the recently launched Rice Brain Institute.

In its first year, the initiative will establish a global brain research agenda, piloting brain economy strategies in certain regions, and introducing a framework to guide financial backers and leaders. It will also advocate for public policies tied to the brain economy.

The report from the McKinsey Health Institute and World Economic Forum estimates that advancements in brain health could generate $6.2 trillion in economic gains by 2050.

“Stronger brains build stronger societies,” Eyre says. “When we invest in brain health and brain skills, we contribute to long-term growth, resilience, and shared prosperity.”

Rice Alliance and the Ion leader Brad Burke to retire this summer

lasting legacy

Brad Burke—a Rice University associate vice president who leads the Ion District’s Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and is a prominent figure in Houston’s startup community—is retiring this summer after a 25-year career at the university.

Burke will remain at the Rice Alliance as an adviser until his retirement on June 30.

“Brad’s impact on Rice extends far beyond any single program or initiative. He grew the Rice Alliance from a promising campus initiative into one of the most respected university-based entrepreneurship platforms,” Rice President Reginald DesRoches said in a news release.

During Burke’s tenure, the Rice Business School went from unranked in entrepreneurship to The Princeton Review’s No. 1 graduate entrepreneurship program for the past seven years and a top 20 entrepreneurship program in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings for the past 14 years.

“Brad didn’t just build programs — he built an ecosystem, a culture, and a reputation for Rice that now resonates around the world,” said Peter Rodriguez, dean of the business school. “Through his vision and steady leadership, Rice became a place where founders are taken seriously, ideas are rigorously supported, and entrepreneurship is embedded in the fabric of the university.”

One of Burke’s notable achievements at Rice is the creation of the Rice Business Plan Competition. During his tenure, the competition has grown from nine student teams competing for $10,000 into the world’s largest intercollegiate competition for student-led startups. Today, the annual competition welcomes 42 student-led startups that vie for more than $1 million in prizes.

Away from Rice, Burke has played a key role in cultivating entrepreneurship in the energy sector: He helped establish the Energy Tech Venture Forum along with Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week.

Furthermore, Burke co-founded the Texas University Network for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 2008 to bolster the entrepreneurship programs at every university in Texas. In 2016, the Rice Alliance assumed leadership of the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers.

In 2023, Burke received the Trailblazer Award at the 2023 Houston Innovation Awards and was recognized by the Deshpande Foundation for his contributions to innovation and entrepreneurship in higher education.

“Working with an amazing team to build the entrepreneurial ecosystem at Rice, in Houston, and beyond has been the privilege of my career,” Burke said in the release. “It has been extremely gratifying to hear entrepreneurs say our efforts changed their lives, while bringing new innovations to market. The organization is well-positioned to help drive exponential growth across startups, investors, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.”

Starting April 15, John “JR” Reale Jr. will serve as interim associate vice president at Rice and executive director of the Rice Alliance. He is managing director of the alliance. Reale is co-founder of the Station Houston startup hub and a startup investor. He was also recently named director for startups and investor engagement at the Ion.

“The Rice Alliance has always been about helping founders gain advantages to realize their visions,” Reale said. “Under Brad’s leadership, the Rice Alliance has become a globally recognized platform that is grounded in trust and drives transformational founder outcomes. My commitment is to honor what Brad has built and led while continuing to serve our team and community, deepen relationships and deliver impact.”

Burke joined the Houston Innovators Podcast back in 2022. Listen to the full interview here.

Houston team uses CPRIT funding to develop nanodrug for cancer immunotherapy

cancer research

With a relative five-year survival rate of 50 percent, pancreatic cancer is a diagnosis nobody wants. At 60 percent, the prognosis for lung cancer isn’t much rosier. That’s because both cancers contain regulatory B cells (Bregs), which block the body’s natural immunity, making it harder to fight the enemies within.

Newly popular immunotherapies in a category known as STING agonists may stimulate natural cancer defenses. However, they can also increase Bregs while simultaneously causing significant side effects. But Wei Gao, assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Houston College of Pharmacy, may have a solution to that conundrum.

Gao and her team have developed Nano-273, a dual-function drug, packaged in an albumin-based particle, that boosts the immune system to help it better fight pancreatic and lung cancers. Gao’s lab recently received a $900,000 grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) to aid in fueling her research into the nanodrug.

“Nano-273 both activates STING and blocks PI3Kγ—a pathway that drives Breg expansion, while albumin nanoparticles help deliver the drug directly to immune cells, reducing unwanted side effects,” Gao said in a press release. “This approach reduces harmful Bregs while boosting immune cells that attack cancer, leading to stronger and more targeted anti-tumor responses.”

In studies using models of both pancreatic and lung cancers, Nano-273 has shown great promise with low toxicity. Its best results thus far have involved using the drug in combination with immunotherapy or chemotherapy.

With the CPRIT funds, Gao and her team will be able to charge closer to clinical use with a series of important steps. Those include continuing to test Nano-273 alongside other drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Safety studies will follow, but with future patients in mind, Gao will also work toward improving her drug’s production, making sure that it’s safe and high-quality every time, so that it is eventually ready for trials.

Gao added: “If successful, this project could lead to a new type of immunotherapy that offers lasting tumor control and improved survival for patients with pancreatic and lung cancers, two diseases that urgently need better treatments."

View All Listings