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 has the lowest inflation problem in the U.S., new study finds

Money Talk

Despite the national inflation rate sitting at 3 percent as of September 2025, the impact of inflation on Houston and the surrounding area isn't as severe as the rest of the U.S., a new study has revealed.

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land ranked as the metro with the smallest inflation problem in the U.S. in WalletHub's October 2025 "Changes in Inflation by City" report.

The study tracked inflation changes for 23 major metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) using Consumer Price Index data from the latest month available and compared to data from two months prior. The analysis also factored in inflation data from last year to analyze both short- and long-term inflation changes.

Compared to two months ago, the inflation rate in Houston fell by 0.1 percent, and local inflation is only 1.10 percent higher than it was a year ago, WalletHub said.

Houston residents may be feeling the sting a lot less than they did in January 2024, when WalletHub said the city had the 7th highest inflation rate in the country. And yet, Houstonians are increasingly concerned with the economy and its effects on inflation, a recent University of Houston survey found.

A separate WalletHub study named Texas the No. 1 most "financially distressed" state in the U.S. for 2025, adding to the severity of Texans' economical woes.

U.S. cities with the worst inflation problems

Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado topped the list as the city with the No. 1 worst inflation problem as of September. The Denver metro saw a 1 percent uptick in inflation when compared to two months prior, and it's 3.10 percent higher than it was a year ago.

Elsewhere in Texas, WalletHub ranked Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington as the metro with the 8th lowest inflation problem nationwide. That's a fair shift from a previous report from June 2025 that ranked DFW the No. 1 U.S. metro with the lowest inflation issues.

The top 10 metros where inflation has risen the most as of September 2025 are:

  • No. 1 – Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado
  • No. 2 – Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, California
  • No. 3 – Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
  • No. 4 – Boston-Cambridge-Newton, Massachusetts-New Hampshire
  • No. 5 –Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, Minnesota-Wisconsin
  • No. 6 – (tied) Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland-West Virginia
  • No. 8 – Anchorage, Alaska
  • No. 9 – New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania
  • No. 10 – San Diego-Carlsbad, California
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Axiom Space taps solar array developer for first space station module

space contract

Houston-based Axiom Space is making progress on developing its commercial space station.

The company awarded Florida-based Redwire Corporation a contract to develop and deliver roll-out solar array (ROSA) wings to power the Axiom Payload Power Thermal Module (AxPPTM), which will be the first module for the new space station.

AxPPTM will initially attach to the International Space Station. AxPPTM will later separate from the ISS and rendezvous with Axiom’s Habitat 1 (AxH1) on orbit. Eventually, an airlock, Habitat 2 (AxH2) and finally the Research and Manufacturing Facility (AxRMF) will be added to the first two Axiom modules.

AxPPTM is anticipated to launch toward the end of 2027. The two-module station (AxPPTM and AxH1) is expected to be operational as a free-flying station by 2028, and the full four-module station around 2030.

The modules will be integrated and assembled at Axiom Space’s Assembly and Integration facility, making them the first human-rated spacecraft built in Houston.

Redwire’s ROSA technology was originally developed for the ISS, according to Space News. It has yielded a 100 percent success rate on on-orbit performance. The technology has also been used on NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, the Maxar-built Power and Propulsion Element for the Artemis Lunar Gateway and Thales Alenia Space’s Space Inspire satellites.

“As a market leader for space power solutions, Redwire is proud to be selected as a strategic supplier to deliver ROSAs for Axiom Space’s first space station module,” Mike Gold, Redwire president of civil and international space, said in a news release. “As NASA and industry take the next steps to build out commercial space stations to maintain U.S. leadership in low-Earth orbit, Redwire continues to be the partner of choice, enabling critical capabilities to ensure on-orbit success.”

Greentown Houston to add new AI lab for energy startups

AI partnership

Greentown Labs has partnered with Shoreless to launch an AI lab within its Houston climatetech incubator.

"Climatetech and energy startups are transforming industries, and AI is a critical tool in that journey," Lawson Gow, Greentown's Head of Houston, said in a news release. "We're excited to bring this new offering to our entrepreneurs and corporate partners to enhance the way they think about reducing costs and emissions across the value chain."

Shoreless, a Houston-based company that enables AI adoption for enterprise systems, will support startups developing solutions for supply-chain optimization and decarbonization. They will offer Greentown members climate sprint sessions that will deliver AI-driven insights to assist companies in reducing Scope 3 emissions, driving new revenue streams and lowering expenses. Additionally, the lab will help companies test their ideas before attempting to scale them globally.

"The future of climatetech is intertwined with the future of AI," Ken Myers, Founder and CEO of Shoreless, said in a news release. "By launching this AI lab with Greentown Labs, we are creating a collaborative ecosystem where innovation can flourish. Our agentic AI is designed to help companies make a real difference, and we are excited to see the groundbreaking solutions that will emerge from this partnership."

Greentown and Shoreless will collaborate on workshops that address industry needs for technical teams, and Shoreless will also work to provide engagement opportunities and tailored workshops for Greentown’s startups and residents. Interested companies can inquire here.

Recently, Greentown Labs also partnered with Los Angeles-based software development firm Nominal to launch the new Industrial Center of Excellence at Greentown's Houston incubator. It also announced a partnership with Houston-based EnergyTech Nexus, which will also open an investor lounge on-site last month. Read more here.

---

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

View All Listings