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

West Coast innovation organization unveils new location in Houston suburb to boost Texas tech ecosystem

plugging in

Leading innovation platform Plug and Play announced the opening of its new flagship Houston-area location in Sugar Land, which is its fourth location in Texas.

Plug and Play has accelerated over 2,700 startups globally last year with corporate partners that include Dell Technologies, Daikin, Microsoft, LG Chem, Shell, and Mercedes. The company’s portfolio includes PayPal, Dropbox, LendingClub, and Course Hero, with 8 percent of the portfolio valued at over $100 million.

The deal, which facilitated by the Sugar Land Office of Economic Development and Tourism, will bring a new office for the organization to Sugar Land Town Square with leasing and hiring between December and January. The official launch is slated for the first quarter of 2025, and will feature 15 startups announced on Selection Day.

"By expanding to Sugar Land, we’re creating a space where startups can access resources, build partnerships, and scale rapidly,” VP Growth Strategy at Plug and Play Sherif Saadawi says in a news release. “This location will help fuel Texas' innovation ecosystem, providing entrepreneurs with the tools and networks they need to drive real-world impact and contribute to the state’s technological and economic growth."

Plug and Play plans to hire four full-time equivalent employees and accelerate two startup batches per year. The focus will be on “smart cities,” which include energy, health, transportation, and mobility sectors. One Sugar Land City representative will serve as a board member.

“We are excited to welcome Plug and Play to Sugar Land,” Mayor of Sugar Land Joe Zimmerma adds. “This investment will help us connect with corporate contacts and experts in startups and businesses that would take us many years to reach on our own. It allows us to create a presence, attract investments and jobs to the city, and hopefully become a base of operations for some of these high-growth companies.”

The organization originally entered the Houston market in 2019 and now has locations in Bryan/College Station, Frisco, and Cedar Park in Texas.

Uniquely Houston event to convene innovation experts across aerospace, energy, and medicine

guest column

Every year, Houston's legacy industries — energy, medicine, and aerospace — come together to share innovative ideas and collaborate on future opportunities.

For the eighteenth year in a row, the annual Pumps & Pipes event will showcase and explore convergence innovation and common technology themes across Houston’s three major industries. The hosting organization, also called Pumps & Pipes, was established in 2007 in Houston and is dedicated to fostering collaboration amongst the city's three major industries.

With NASA in its backyard, the world’s largest medical center, and a reputation as the “Energy Capital of the World,” Houston is uniquely positioned to lead in cross-industry convergence innovation and is reflected in the theme of this year’s event – Blueprint Houston: Converge and Innovate.

Here's what you can expect to explore at the event, which will take place this year on December 9 at TMC Helix Park. Tickets are available online.

The state of Texas’ aerospace investments

How are the recent strategic investments in aerospace by the State of Texas transforming the space economy and driving growth in adjacent industries? What is the case for cultivating a more dynamic and vibrant aerospace R&D environment?

These are the key questions explored in the opening session of Pumps & Pipes, moderated by David Alexander (Director, Rice Space Institute). Joining the discussion are distinguished leaders Norman Garza, Jr., Executive Director of the Texas Space Commission (TSC); as well as two members of the TSC board of directors: Sarah “Sassie” Duggelby, CEO/Co-Founder of Venus Aerospace; and Kathryn Lueders, GM at Starbase, SpaceX.

This panel will spotlight Texas’ critical role in shaping the future of aerospace, with a focus on its cross-sector impact, from space exploration to innovation in energy and health care. We’ll explore how the state’s investments are fueling research and development, creating economic opportunities, and fostering a more interconnected, high-tech ecosystem for the future.

Real-world applications of robotics and synthetic biology

Explore the groundbreaking intersection of syntheticbiology and robotics as they reshape industries from aerospace to energy to health care. Experts from academia and industry — Rob Ambrose of Texas A&M University, Shankar Nadarajah of ExxonMobil, Shalini Yadav of the Rice Synthetic Biology Institute, and Moji Karimi of Cemvita — will discuss the real-world applications and future possibilities of these two fields, including innovative uses of robotics and drones to monitor emissions from deep-sea oil rigs, and synthetic microbes that convert carbon dioxide into valuable chemical products.

Discover how synthetic biology and robotics are paving the way for a more sustainable, autonomous, efficient, and interconnected future.

The total artificial heart – a uniquely Houston story

Heart failure affects millions globally, yet only a small fraction of patients receive life-saving heart transplants. The Total Artificial Heart (TAH), developed by BiVACOR, offers a revolutionary solution for patients with severe heart failure who are ineligible for a transplant.

Luminary leader, Dr. Billy Cohn, will discuss the groundbreaking BiVACOR TAH, a device that fully replaces the function of the heart using a magnetically levitated rotary pump. This innovative approach is part of an FDA-approved first-in-human study, aiming to evaluate its use as a bridge-to-transplant for patients awaiting heart transplants.

Moderated by Dr. Alan Lumsden (Chair Dept. of CV Surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital), join Dr. Cohn as he shares insights, and the story-behind, this pioneering technology and its potential to reshape the future of heart failure treatment, offering new hope to thousands of patients in need.

------

Stuart Corr is the director of Innovation Systems Engineering at Houston Methodist and executive director of Pumps & Pipes.

Houston schools shine on annual ranking of top institutions for 2025

best in class

Several Houston elementary and middle schools are at the top of the class when it comes to educating and preparing the next generation for a successful life and career, according to U.S. News & World Report's just-released list of 2025 Elementary and Middle Schools Rankings.

One such school – T.H. Rogers School in Houston ISD – is the No. 8 best middle school in Texas for 2025.

U.S. News ranked over 79,000 public schools on the state and district level using data from the U.S. Department of Education. Schools were analyzed based on their students' proficiencies in mathematics and reading/language arts on state assessments, and tie-breakers were decided based on student-teacher ratios.

Texas' best middle schools for 2025

Three Houston middle schools achieved spots among the top 10 best Texas middle schools for 2025, according to U.S. News.

T.H. Rogers School has a total enrollment of 1,063 students, with 87 percent of the student population scoring "at or above the proficient level" in mathematics, and 90 percent proficiency in reading. The school has a student-teacher ratio of 17:1, with 62 full-time teachers.

T.H. Rogers School also topped the district-wide list as the No. 1 best middle school in HISD.

Houston Gateway Academy - Coral Campus also ranked among the statewide top 10, coming in at No. 9 with a total enrollment of 914 students. U.S. News says 82 percent of HGA students are proficient in math, and 80 percent are proficient in reading.

"Houston Gateway Academy - Coral Campus did better in math and better in reading in this metric compared with students across the state," U.S. News said in the school's profile. "In Texas, 51 percent of students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 41 percent tested at or above that level for math."

Right behind HGA to round out the top 10 best Texas middle schools is Houston ISD's Briarmeadow Charter School. This middle school has 600 students, 69 percent of which are proficient in math and 74 percent are proficient reading.

Briarmeadow's student-teacher ratio is 16:1, which is better than the district-wide student-teacher ratio, and it employs 38 full-time teachers.

U.S. News also ranked Briarmeadow as the second best middle school in Houston ISD.

Six additional Houston-area schools ranked among the top 25 best middle schools in Texas, including:

  • No. 18 – Cornerstone Academy, Spring Branch ISD
  • No. 19 – Mandarin Immersion Magnet School, Houston ISD
  • No. 21 – Smith Middle School, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
  • No. 22 – Seven Lakes Junior High, Katy ISD
  • No. 23 – Houston Gateway Academy
  • No. 25 – Beckendorff Junior High, Katy ISD

The best elementary schools in Texas

Jesus A. Kawas Elementary school in Laredo was crowned the No. 1 elementary school in Texas for 2025, while two Houston-area schools made it into the top 10.Tomball ISD's Creekside Forest Elementary in The Woodlands is the No. 7 best elementary school statewide, boasting 656 students, 42 full-time teachers, and one full-time counselor. Students at this school, which U.S. News designates is situated in a "fringe rural setting," scored 90 percent efficiency in math and 94 percent efficiency in reading.Following one spot behind Creekside Forest in the statewide ranking is Sugar Land's Commonwealth Elementary School in Fort Bend ISD, coming in at No. 8. Commonwealth has a student population of 954 with 55 full-time teachers, and two full-time counselors. The school's student-teacher ratio is 17:1, and 90 percent of students are proficient in math, and 94 percent in reading.U.S. News says student success at Commonwealth is significantly higher than the rest of Fort Bend ISD."In Fort Bend Independent School District, 59 percent of students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 47 percent tested at or above that level for math," U.S. News said in Commonwealth's profile. "Commonwealth Elementary [also] did better in math and better in reading in this metric compared with students across the state."Other Houston-area schools that were ranked among the 25 best in Texas are:
  • No. 13 – Bess Campbell Elementary, Sugar Land, Lamar CISD
  • No. 20 – West University Elementary, Houston ISD
  • No. 23 – T.H. Rogers School, Houston ISD
  • No. 25 – Griffin Elementary, Katy ISD

"The 2025 Best Elementary and Middle Schools rankings offer parents a way to evaluate how schools are providing a high-quality education and preparing students for future success," said LaMont Jones, Ed.D., the managing editor for Education at U.S. News. "The data empowers families and communities to advocate for their children’s education. Research continues to indicate that how students perform academically at these early grade levels is a big factor in their success in high school and beyond."

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

View All Listings