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

Harris County booms with 3rd biggest population in U.S.

Boomtown

Newly released U.S. Census Bureau data has revealed Harris County became the third most populous county nationwide in 2024, and it had the highest year-over-year growth rate from 2023.

The new population report, published this month, estimated year-over-year population data from 2023 to 2024 across all 3,144 U.S. counties, and 387 metro areas.

Harris County's numeric growth rate outpaced all other U.S. counties from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2024, the report found. The Census Bureau estimated Harris County's population grew by 105,852 people year-over-year, bringing the total population to 5,009,302 residents. That's around a 2.16 percent growth rate.

Los Angeles County, California (No. 1) and Illinois' Cook County (No. 2) are the only two U.S. counties that have larger populations than Harris County. Los Angeles County now boasts a population of nearly 9.76 million, while Cook County's has increased to more than 5.18 million people.

The top 10 most populous counties in the U.S. are:

  • No. 1 – Los Angles County, California
  • No. 2 – Cook County, Illinois
  • No. 3 – Harris County, Texas
  • No. 4 – Maricopa County, Arizona
  • No. 5 – San Diego County, California
  • No. 6 – Orange County, California
  • No. 7 – Miami-Dade County, Florida
  • No. 8 – Dallas County, Texas
  • No. 9 – Kings County, New York
  • No. 10 – Riverside County, California

Montgomery County also ranked among the top 10 U.S. counties with the highest numeric growth, ranking 9th nationally after gaining 34,268 residents from 2023 to 2024. Montgomery County's population has now grown to 749,613 people.

In the report's national comparison of counties with the largest population growth by percentage, Montgomery County ranked No. 7 with a year-over-year growth rate of 4.8 percent.

Most populated U.S. metro areas

The U.S. Census Bureau additionally found Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands nearly led the nation as the second-fastest growing metro area in 2024.

From July 2023 to July 2024, the Houston metro added 198,171 residents to bring the total population to 7,796,182.

New York-Newark-Jersey City was the only metro area to outpace Houston's growth during the one-year period. The New York-New Jersey metro added 213,403 new residents, which brought the total population to over 19.94 million last year.

Kristie Wilder, a Census Bureau Population Division demographer, said in the report that the nation's population growth in its major metros was largely impacted by international migration rather than changes in birth rates.

"While births continue to contribute to overall growth, rising net international migration is offsetting the ongoing net domestic outmigration we see in many of these areas," Wilder said.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington was right behind Houston as the third-fastest growing U.S. metro in 2024. The Metroplex gained 177,922 residents last year, and now has a total population of more than 8.34 million.

The top 10 U.S. metros with the highest numeric growth from 2023 to 2024 are:

  • No. 1 – New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York-New Jersey
  • No. 2 – Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, Texas
  • No. 3 – Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas
  • No. 4 – Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Florida
  • No. 5 – Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland-West Virginia
  • No. 6 – Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Arizona
  • No. 7 – Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Florida
  • No. 8 – Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia
  • No. 9 – Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Illinois-Indiana
  • No. 10 – Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Washington
---

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

New report reveals how much Texans are warming up to AI

eyes on ai

When new technology emerges, many of us approach it with a certain amount of skepticism. That’s certainly true with artificial intelligence, which is creeping into practically every part of our existence. Pew Research Center surveys show that more than half (52 percent) of Americans are increasingly cautious about the growing presence of AI in their everyday lives.

So, how wary are Texans of AI? A new ranking from ZapCap, whose AI generates captions for videos, gives us a clue. Texas ranks 15th among the states that are most trusting of AI, with a trust score of 85 out of 100.

Translation: Texans appear to be OK with embracing AI.

To develop the ranking, ZapCap collected search volume data for AI-related queries, including terms such as “best AI tools,” “best AI assistants,” “how to use AI” and “ChatGPT.” ZapCap then calculated a trust score based on each state’s search activity and population.

“This research provides an insightful look into AI engagement patterns across the U.S., highlighting the states where AI is most actively explored and potentially trusted,” says ZapCap.

With an off-the-charts score of 116, California tops the list. California “demonstrates extraordinary AI engagement with over 44 million ChatGPT searches and 77,910 Claude.AI queries, marking the highest AI tool adoption rates across all metrics,” says ZapCap.

Here’s the rest of the top five, including their AI trust scores:

  • New York — 108
  • Massachusetts — 106
  • Virginia — 102
  • New Jersey — 99

The state with the least amount of AI trust is Minnesota, which received a ZapCap score of 22.

“What’s fascinating is that innovation is blooming far beyond the usual tech hotspots,” ZapCap’s Jessica Bui said in a release. “While California and New York continue to lead, states like Massachusetts and Virginia are rising as innovation powerhouses. Their rapid adoption of new technology proves that it's not about market size — it’s about fostering a culture where businesses and everyday people feel confident exploring what's next.”

See the full findings here.

5 Houston female founders land on coveted Inc. 500 list

girl power

Five Houston female founders have been recognized by Inc. Magazine for their innovations and for leading their industries forward.

The women were named to Inc.'s Female Founders 500 list, which features female entrepreneurs based in the U.S. The group attracted approximately $9 billion in 2024 revenue and $10.6 billion in funding, according to Inc.

“Female founders know what struggle is, but they’re also experts of improvisation, adaptability, and creativity. The women featured on this year’s list exemplify these qualities," Diana Ransom, Inc. executive editor said in a release. "Through times of uncertainty, their unwavering dedication and steadfast leadership are not only inspiring but vital to driving progress.”

The Houston founders are:

  • Emily Cisek, founder of The Postage, now known as Paige, a comprehensive life planning and succession software platform for families and small businesses. The company won the Female-Owned Business category in the 2023 Houston Innovation Awards.
  • Sassie Duggleby, CEO and co-founder of Houston space tech and engine company Venus Aerospace. The company won the in the Deep Tech Business category in the 2024 Houston Innovation Awards. Duggleby also serves on the Texas Space Commission board of directors.
  • Stephanie Murphy, CEO and executive chairman of Aegis Aerospace, which provides space services, spaceflight product development, and engineering services. Murphy also serves on the Texas Aerospace Research and Space Economy Consortium Executive Committee.
  • Margo Jordan, founder of adolescent mental health startup Enrichly, which uses AI-driven self-esteem development and behavioral insights to boost student performance.
  • Nina Magon, founder of Nina Magon Studio / Nina Magon Consumer Products, a residential and commercial interior design company

"With every family and community we're able to impact through accessible estate planning, we're driven to do even more. Being recognized on Inc.’s Female Founders list is an incredible honor and a testament to the impact we’re making in fintech and beyond," Cisek said in a news release.

Duggleby echoed that sentiment on LinkedIn.

"While I don't know many of the ladies on this list, I do know they're some of the most tenacious role models in entrepreneurship. I'm beyond honored to be included among them," Duggleby added in a post.

Twenty-eight Texas female founders made this list, including Kendra Scott and Allison Ellsworth, co-founder of Poppi, and many others. See the full list of winners here.