CEF.UP – FIN Seminar

Thursday – April 24^th, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. | Room 305| Online

“Voting Rationales“

Silvina Rubio  – University of Bristol (England, United Kingdom)

Abstract:

“Why do institutional investors vote the way they vote? Using a novel dataset on institutional investors’ voting rationales, we provide direct evidence on the motivation for institutions’ votes in director elections. The main reasons for opposition are lack of independence and diversity. Concerns raised in rationales reflect firms’ governance weaknesses: companies with low board gender diversity receive more rationales on diversity, with similar results for independence, tenure, busyness, and CEO duality. Companies listen and change board composition in the direction stated in voting rationales. Results suggest many institutions make independent voting decisions with merits, and firms address investors’ concerns.”

CEF.UP – ECO Seminar

Tuesday – April 29^th 2025, at 13:00h | Room 305

Decentralized Persuasion

Itai Arieli –  Faculty of Data and Decision Sciences, TECHNION – Israel Institute of Technology  (Israel), University of Toronto (Canada)

Abstract:

“Information is often distributed across multiple senders. This paper explores the extent to which senders with a common utility function but independent and imperfect information can collaboratively persuade a receiver. We suppose that the senders’ combined information (almost) fully reveals the true state, and compare these senders’ attainable utility to the maximum achievable by a single, fully informed sender. We show that decentralized senders cannot generally attain this maximum, except in cases where fully revealing a state is optimal. On the positive side, we show that they can guarantee a constant fraction of this maximum, and that the maximum itself can be obtained if senders have access to a public randomization device.”

CEF.UP – MaR Seminar/Webinar

Tuesday – April 29^th, 2025 | 18:30h – 20:00h | Room 631 | Online

“”Are we good? Or do we need to keep going?”: Unravelling auditors’ evidence sufficiency determinations”

Lisa Baudot – HEC Paris (France)

Abstract:

“Determining when sufficient appropriate evidence has been gathered is a critical aspect of audit judgment, with public regulators frequently citing insufficient evidence as a key deficiency in audits. Drawing on interviews with 45 auditors across firms of varying sizes and using a theoretical framework that integrates both the structured and affective dimensions of professional judgements, our study explores how auditors approach evidence sufficiency determinations. Our analysis reveals the dynamic, cyclical decision-making process auditors employ while assessing evidence sufficiency. Initially, auditors rely on established guidelines, which provide a structured approach. When these guidelines prove insufficient or mismatch the specific scenario, discomfort prompts auditors to engage in deeper evaluation. This might include revising evidence thresholds, adapting rules for evidence comparison, or forming mental models to better understand the situation alongside the collective inputs gathered throughout the process. This iterative process can either resolve the initial discomfort or lead auditors to accept some residual discomfort. As auditors navigate a variety of stopping rules and feelings of (dis) comfort, they continuously recalibrate their sufficiency determinations based on prior experiences, establishing a feedback loop that informs perceptions of comfort, and the evidence required to attain it.”