Multistage Capital Budgeting With Delayed Consumption of Slack

Capital budgeting frequently involves multiple stages at which firms can continue or abandon ongoing projects. In this paper, we study a project requiring two stages of investment. Failure to fund Stage 1 of the investment precludes investment in Stage 2, whereas failure to fund Stage 2 results in early termination. In contrast to the existing literature, we assume that the firm can limit the manager\u27s informational rents with the early termination of the project. In this setting, we find that the firm optimally commits to a capital allocation scheme whereby it forgoes positive net present value (NPV) projects at Stage 1 (capital rationing), whereas at Stage 2, depending on the manager\u27s previous report, it sometimes implements projects with a negative continuation NPV but in other situations forgoes implementing projects with positive continuation NPVs

The Effects of Reputation and Ethics on Budgetary Slack

This experimental study tests the effects on budgetary slack of two potential controls for opportunistic self-interestóreputation and ethics. I manipulate the level of information asymmetry between the subordinate and the superior regarding productive capability and measure the subordinateís reputation and ethical concerns regarding budgetary slack. In this setting, I examine how information asymmetry affects reputation and ethical concerns, and test the effects of these concerns on budgetary slack. Consistent with prior findings, subordinates restrict the slack in their budgets to well below the maximum under a slackinducing pay scheme, even after five periods of experience. Budgetary slack is negatively associated with a measure of ethical responsibility from a pre-experiment personality questionnaire as well as reputation and ethical concerns expressed in an exit questionnaire. Subordinates express lower reputation concerns as information asymmetry regarding productive capability increases, thereby reducing the superiorís ability to monitor the slack in their budget. Ethical concerns, however, are not diminished with increases in information asymmetry. These results suggest that reputation is a socially mediated control, whereas ethics is an internally mediated control for opportunistic self-interest

Renegotiation and Relative Performance Evaluation: Why an Informative Signal may be Useless

Although Holmström's informativeness criterion provides a theoretical foundation for the controllability principle and inter firm relative performance evaluation, empirical and field studies provide only weak evidence on such practices. This paper refines the traditional informativeness criterion by abandoning the conventional full-commitment assumption. With the possibility of renegotiation, a signal's usefulness in incentive contracting depends on its information quality, not simply on whether the signal is informative. This paper derives conditions for determining when a signal is useless and when it is useful. In particular, these conditions will be met when the signal's information quality is either sufficiently poor or sufficiently rich

Fair Value Measurement Under Level 2 Inputs: Do Market and Transaction Multiples Catch Firm-Specific Risk Factors?

This paper focuses on fair value measurement under the IFRS 13 assumptions and the reliability of the market and transaction multiples evaluations (\u201cLevel 2\u201d methods). We test the reliability of multiples evaluation approaches in different economic sectors, by comparing the fair value of 1678 companies estimated by multiples with the effective market capitalization over 15 years. Multiples\u2019 fair value does not provide a reliable measure of a company\u2019s value, with a gap that varies depending upon portfolios and time. In the case of observable Level 2 fair value indicators for a market, such as market multiples, the company\u2019s fair value is not consistent with the real market value. Thus, whenever Level 2 indicators are not observable, the method is increasing volatility and intrinsic evaluation risk