CEO beauty and management guidance

PurposeThe authors study whether CEO beauty influences management guidance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors calculate an attractiveness score based on facial symmetry and perform regression analyses to examine the relation between CEO beauty and management guidance.FindingsThe authors find that attractive CEOs are more likely to issue voluntary management earnings guidance. After controlling for this appearance-based self-selection, the authors document that management forecasts provided by attractive CEOs are more optimistic yet less precise. Consistent with this result, the authors find that analysts' consensus forecast error following management forecasts made by attractive CEOs is larger than such error following management forecasts made by unattractive CEOs. The authors further find that the perceived credibility of management forecasts by attractive CEOs is not different from that by unattractive CEOs.Originality/valueThese findings suggest that attractive CEOs are more active but less skillful in issuing management forecasts. This adds to the emerging accounting literature on the relation between facial appearance and information delivery.

Impact of Tournament Incentives on Management Earnings Forecasts

This paper examines how rank-order tournament incentives in the top management team (TMT) influence the quality of management earnings forecasts (MEFs). Instead of breeding feelings of inequality and fostering peer sabotage, the large pay gap between the CEO and subordinates may motivate top executives to issue more accurate and precise forecasts to win the prize of promotion. The positive tournament effect on the quality of MEFs is weakened (strengthened) when the perceived probability of promotion for candidates is low (high). We find that firms with higher tournament incentives are more likely to issue supplementary forecasts to increase the credibility of MEFs. By examining the tournament effect at each subordinate manager level, we find that CFOs are the driving force in controlling the frequency and quality of management forecasts and chief marketing officers (CMOs) may also contribute to the quality of management forecasts. The results are robust to multiple measures of tournament incentives and multiple research designs.

Do Director Networks Help Managers Forecast Better?

I examine whether directors' superior access to information through their board network improves the accuracy of firms' forecasting. Managers may benefit from well-connected directors (i.e., board centrality) as they may have limited insight into market developments or decision-making processes of other firms beyond knowledge specific to their firm. Employing a sample of U.S.-listed companies, I separately examine the effect of within-firm variation in direct and indirect board connections on management earnings forecast accuracy. The study contributes by showing that higher-degree connections can have an economically significant effect on the accuracy of management forecasts, regardless of firms' board interlocks. Further analyses point toward well-connected directors' ability to provide managers with valuable advice in a forecasting context, which complements directors' more extensively studied role in preventing managerial expropriation.

Correction to: Management forecasts of volatility

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s11142-021-09592-x

Deception by commission or by omission – management forecasts surrounding share repurchases

PurposeIn this study, the authors extend upon Brockman et al. (2008), who provide evidence that managers opportunistically accelerate bad news prior to share repurchases, but provide limited evidence that managers withhold good news until after repurchases. The authors examine management forecasts surrounding share repurchases in periods when companies must disclose detailed repurchase information. The authors argue these disclosures increase managers' legal and reputation risks of accelerating bad news, but have a lesser effect on delaying good news.Design/methodology/approachFirst, the authors examine whether managers alter the information released to the market before buying back shares by comparing managerial forecasts made within 30 days before the beginning of a repurchasing period with those made outside of this window. Second, the authors examine whether managers are more likely to provide good news forecasts, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, after buying back shares. Lastly, the authors examine the impact of CEO stock ownership on managerial forecasting behavior surrounding share buybacks.FindingsConsistent with the authors’ hypotheses and contrary to Brockman et al. (2008), the authors find limited evidence that the likelihood or magnitude of bad news forecasts is greater in the period before share buybacks. Instead, the authors document that the frequency and magnitude of good news forecasts increase in periods following share buybacks and that these associations are positively moderated by managerial equity incentives. The authors also find that the withholding of good news is associated with lower average repurchase prices and greater repurchase volume. The authors further show that, when litigation risk is greater, managers are less likely to accelerate bad news prior to repurchases and more likely to withhold good news until after. Overall, the study results are consistent with managers balancing the benefits of opportunistic repurchase behavior with the costs.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the management forecast and share repurchase literatures by providing evidence consistent with managers opportunistically releasing earnings forecasts in the period after buying back shares. Most importantly, the authors show that after the rule revision, managers refrain from actively disclosing bad news that carry higher legal costs. Instead, they opt for the omission of good news to repurchase stocks at lower prices. The study results reconcile the conflicting evidence of Brockman et al. (2008) and Ge and Lennox (2011).