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

Axiom Space launches semiconductor and astronaut training initiatives

space projects

Axiom Space, a Houston-based commercial spaceflight and space infrastructure company, has launched initiatives in two very different spheres — semiconductors and astronaut training.

On the semiconductor front, Axiom has signed a memorandum of understanding with Japanese chemical company Resonac Corp. to collaborate on semiconductor R&D and manufacturing projects carried out in space. Among Resonac’s products are materials used in chip manufacturing.

Axiom said the deal “paves the way toward leveraging microgravity to advance next-generation chip technologies and accelerate the in-space manufacturing market.”

Under the agreement, Axiom and Resonac will explore the potential production of semiconductor materials and chip packaging in microgravity and low-Earth-orbit environments.

“The unique environment of space offers immense potential for advancing semiconductor materials, especially in crystal growth,” Masato Fukushima, Resonac’s chief technology officer, said in a news release.

The deal will also extend Resonac’s work with Axiom on the development of molding compounds that can reduce “soft errors” when semiconductor devices are exposed to space radiation.

“Our collaboration with Resonac underscores how Axiom Space is enabling global corporations from around the world to leverage space to drive manufacturing innovation across critical technology sectors such as semiconductors,” Axiom astronaut Koichi Wakata, the company’s chief technology officer, said.

In the astronaut training arena, Axiom has tapped Portuguese physiologist Emiliano Ventura as its first “Project Astronaut.” Ventura will apply his expertise in human performance to a pilot program aimed at testing six-month astronaut training protocols.

“His goal is to participate in a future mission and explore, with scientific depth and curiosity, how the human body adapts to microgravity, contributing fresh insights to the current body of research in space physiology,” Axiom said.

Ventura has helped several Axiom crewmembers with physiological needs before and after missions aboard the International Space Station.

Axiom said Ventura’s pilot program will study astronauts’ physiological responses to microgravity during spaceflight. The program eventually will benefit Axiom astronauts heading to the world’s first commercial space station, which is being built by Axiom.

Michael López-Alegria, Axiom’s chief astronaut, said he and the company’s two other astronauts will train with Ventura. The Project Astronaut initiative “strengthens our commitment to enabling safe, effective, and inspiring commercial space missions while supporting scientific objectives worldwide.” López-Alegria said.

Houston scientist launches new app to support mental health professionals

App for that

One Houston-based mental health scientist is launching a new app-based approach to continuing education that she hopes will change the way doctors, therapists, and social workers evolve in their field.

The app, MHNTI, is named for its parent company, the Mental Health Network & Training Institute. It's a one-stop shop for mental health professionals to find trainers, expert consultations, local providers, webinars, and other tools related to licensure certification and renewal.

Free and paid tiers offer different levels of access, but both offer doctors, counselors, and more an easier way to engage with continuing education. When a mental health professional is looking to expand their knowledge in a way that coincides with CE requirements, MHNTI provides it; as easy as using Amazon.

"We built MHNTI for the clinicians craving meaningful, ongoing training that fits real-life schedules," said Dr. Elizabeth McIngvale. "MHNTI is more than an app. It's a movement to support mental health professionals at every career stage."

McIngvale, the daughter of celebrated Houston entrepreneur Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale, co-founded MHNTI after becoming one of the leading experts on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in the United States. Born with the condition herself, she suffered greatly as a child to the point that she required extensive repetitive rituals daily just to function. She responded to exposure with response prevention (ERP) treatment, earned her Ph.D. from the University of Houston, and is now the director at the OCD Institute of Texas.

This is not the first time she used the internet to try to improve the mental health industry. In 2018, she launched the OCD Challenge website, a free resource for people with OCD.

McIngvale's co-founder is New York-based doctor, entrepreneur, and author Lauren Wadsworth, another expert in OCD and other anxiety disorders. Like McIngvale, she understands that the labyrinthian world of continuing education can keep mental health professionals from achieving their potential.

"Mental health providers are often overworked and under-resourced. MHNTI is here to change that," said Wadsworth. "We're creating a space where clinicians can continuously learn, grow, and feel supported by experts who understand the work firsthand."

MHNTI is available in the App Store, Google Play, and for desktop.

---

A version of this article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Announcing the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards finalists

Inspirational Innovators

InnovationMap is proud to reveal the finalists for the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards.

Taking place on November 13 at Greentown Labs, the fifth annual Houston Innovation Awards will honor the best of Houston's innovation ecosystem, including startups, entrepreneurs, mentors, and more.

This year's finalists were determined by our esteemed panel of judges, comprised of past award winners and InnovationMap editorial leadership.

The panel reviewed nominee applications across 10 prestigious categories to determine our finalists. They will select the winner for each category, except for Startup of the Year, which will be chosen by the public via online voting launching later this month.

We'll announce our 2025 Trailblazer Award recipient in the coming weeks, and then we'll unveil the rest of this year's winners live at our awards ceremony.

Get to know all of our finalists in more detail through editorial spotlights leading up to the big event. Then, join us on November 13 as we unveil the winners and celebrate all things Houston innovation. Tickets are on sale now — secure yours today.

Without further ado, here are the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards finalists:

Minority-founded Business

Honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ representation:

  • Capwell Services
  • Deep Anchor Solutions
  • Mars Materials
  • Torres Orbital Mining (TOM)
  • Wellysis USA

Female-founded Business

Honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by a woman:

  • Anning Corporation
  • Bairitone Health
  • Brain Haven
  • FlowCare
  • March Biosciences
  • TrialClinIQ

Energy Transition Business

Honoring an innovative startup providing a solution within renewables, climatetech, clean energy, alternative materials, circular economy and beyond:

  • Anning Corporation
  • Capwell Services
  • Deep Anchor Solutions
  • Eclipse Energy
  • Loop Bioproducts
  • Mars Materials
  • Solidec

Health Tech Business

Honoring an innovative startup within the health and medical technology sectors:

  • Bairitone Health
  • Corveus Medical
  • FibroBiologics
  • Koda Health
  • NanoEar
  • Wellysis USA

Deep Tech Business

Honoring an innovative startup providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges, including those in the AI, robotics and space sectors:

  • ARIX Technologies
  • Little Place Labs
  • Newfound Materials
  • Paladin Drones
  • Persona AI
  • Tempest Droneworx

Startup of the Year (People's Choice)

Honoring a startup celebrating a recent milestone or success. The winner will be selected by the community via an online voting experience:

  • Eclipse Energy
  • FlowCare
  • MyoStep
  • Persona AI
  • Rheom Materials
  • Solidec

Scaleup of the Year

Honoring an innovative later-stage startup that's recently reached a significant milestone in company growth:

  • Coya Therapeutics
  • Fervo Energy
  • Koda Health
  • Mati Carbon
  • Molecule
  • Utility Global

Incubator/Accelerator of the Year

Honoring a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups:

  • Activate
  • Energy Tech Nexus
  • Greentown Labs
  • Healthtech Accelerator (TMCi)
  • Impact Hub Houston

Mentor of the Year

Honoring an individual who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs. Presented by Houston Community College:

  • Anil Shetty, Inform AI
  • Jason Ethier, EnergyTech Nexus
  • Jeremy Pitts, Activate
  • Joe Alapat, Liongard
  • Neal Dikeman, Energy Transition Ventures
  • Nisha Desai, Intention

Trailblazer Recipient

  • To be announced
---------

Interested in sponsoring the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards? Contact sales@innovationmap.com for details.