Summary:
When studying irrational decision-making characteristics,psychologists find that people are unable to objectively predict the probability of various future situations when the decision-making environment is uncertain. Instead, as expected under neoclassical economics, people selectively over-rely on some pieces of available information. The resulting process, in which inadequate adjustments and decisions are made under the influence of initial “anchor values,” is called “the anchoring effect.” However, few studies examine whether this irrational psychology affects investment decisions made by corporate executives. Therefore, this paper explores whether there is an anchoring effect that affects executive investment decisions. The premises of the anchoring effect are that decisions carry uncertainty and that decision-making can be influenced by anchor values. This paper studies the anchoring effects of tax rates, which are an important factor in enterprise investment decision-making. When the effective tax rate is volatile, executives are unable to rationally predict all possible outcomes and accurately estimate future effective tax rates. If the existing enterprise effective tax rate is higher than the normal tax burden, executives may over-rely on the conspicuously heavy current effective tax burden and irrationally predict that future effective tax rates will be high. This irrational anchoring of executive expectations on existing tax rates will directly affect enterprise investment decisions. Therefore, this paper examines the impacts of tax anchoring effects on enterprise decisions. As its initial sample, our analysis uses data regarding all of the non-financial A-share listed companies in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets from 2003 to 2018. The results reveal significant irrational tax rate anchoring behaviors that influence corporate investment decision-making and significantly reduce future investment expenditure. At times when the current enterprise tax rate is higher than either the contemporary average tax rate (inner anchor) or the equivalent corporate tax rate (external anchor), future investment spending is shown to decline significantly. In such cases, the inner anchoring effect is found to be much stronger than the external anchoring effect. Furthermore, this paper finds that the effects of tax rates on investments vary according to specific executive and corporate characteristics. With increasing age and tenure, executives with fiscal and tax backgrounds are all more able to effectively restrain irrational tax rate anchoring behaviors in their investment decisions. The influence of tax rate anchoring on investments increases with the volatility of the corporate tax rate. Overall, this paper finds that the underinvestment caused by the tax rate anchoring effect significantly reduces a company's operating performance and enterprise value. This conclusion reveals the negative economic consequences of tax rate anchoring in investment decision-making. The potential contributions of this paper to the literature are as follows. First, irrational executive behaviors are important factors that affect senior investment decision-making. From the perspective of the tax rate anchoring effect, this paper enriches the empirical study of the influence of irrational factors on investment decisions. Second, from the perspective of tax rates, which are an important factor in investment decisions, this paper studies the impact of the tax rate anchoring effect on investment decision-making by senior executives. It thereby enriches relevant studies on the selection of anchor values in the anchoring effect, and thus provides evidence in support of existing behavioral economics theories (Zhu Jigao et al., 2017; Chen Shihua and Li Weian, 2016). Third, the literature mainly studies the direct impacts of tax rates and tax rate uncertainty on investments (Fazzari et al., 1988; Jacob et al., 2016; Meng Qingyu et al., 2020). This paper supplements traditional tax investment theory by enriching research on the influence of tax burdens on investment decisions from the perspective of the anchoring effect. Fourth, the conclusions of this paper have implications for the investment practices of enterprises. Solving the problem of tax rate anchoring in investment decision-making will help improve investment efficiency. Maintenance of the continuity and stability of macro tax policy will promote healthy and sustainable enterprise development.
[1]才国伟、吴华强和徐信忠,2018,《政策不确定性对公司投融资行为的影响研究》,《金融研究》第3期,第89～104页。 [2]陈仕华和李维安,2016,《并购溢价决策中的锚定效应研究》,《经济研究》第6期,第114～127页。 [3]陈玥、孟庆玉和袁淳,2019,《员工能受益于企业税收优惠吗？——基于产权性质和税收优惠来源的分析》,《财经研究》第9期,第87～99页。 [4]陈运森、孟庆玉和袁淳,2018,《关系型税收优惠与税收政策的有效性:隐性税收视角》,《会计研究》第2期,第41～47页。 [5]付文林和赵永辉,2014,《税收激励、现金流与企业投资结构偏向》,《经济研究》第5期,第19～33页。 [6]关健、李世辉和李伟斌,2011,《中小企业投资类利益相关者关系质量、扭亏战略与财务脱困的实证研究》,《会计研究》第7期,第52～58页。 [7]贾俊雪,2014,《税收激励、企业有效平均税率与企业进入》,《经济研究》第7期,第94～109页。 [8]姜付秀、张敏、陆正飞和陈才东,2009,《管理者过度自信、企业扩张与财务困境》,《经济研究》第1期,第131～143页。 [9]林长泉、毛新述和刘凯璇,2016,《董秘性别与信息披露质量——来自沪深A股市场的经验证据》,《金融研究》第9期,第193～206页。 [10]孟庆玉、郑登津和袁淳,2020,《税率不确定性与企业投资决策》,《中国会计评论》第3期,第491～522页。 [11]许年行和吴世农,2007,《我国上市公司股权分置改革中的锚定效应研究》,《经济研究》第1期,第114～125页。 [12]杨明增,2009,《经验对审计判断中锚定效应的影响》,《审计研究》第2期,第73～78页。 [13]祝继高、辛宇和仇文妍,2017,《企业捐赠中的锚定效应研究——基于“汶川地震”和“雅安地震”中企业捐赠的实证研究》,《管理世界》第7期,第129～141页。 [14]Cai, M., J. R. Chapman and B. Brown. 2017. “Gender Differences and Age Progression in Career Anchors,” International Journal of Organizational Diversity,17(1):1～9. [15]Fazzari,S., R. Hubbard and B. Petersen. 1988. “Financing Constraints and Corporate Investment, ” Brookings Paper on Economic Activity, 1:141～195. [16]Hanlon, M., E. L. Maydew and D. Saavedra. 2017. “The Taxman Cometh: Does Tax Uncertainty Affect Corporate Cash Holdings？” Review of Accounting Studies, 22(3):1198～1228. [17]Hassett, K. A. and G. E. Metcalf. 1999. “Investment with Uncertain Tax Policy: Does Random Tax Policy Discourage Investment,” The Economic Journal, 109(457):372～393. [18]Jacob, M., W. Kelly and W. Scott. 2016. “Real Effects of Tax Uncertainty: Evidence from Firm Capital Investments,” Working Paper. [19]Johnson, J. E. V., A. Schnytzer, and S. Liu. 2009. “To What Extent do Investors in a Financial Market Anchor their Judgments Excessively？ Evidence from the Hong Kong Horserace Betting Market,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(4):410～434. [20]Kahneman, D.. 2003. “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality,” American psychologist, 58(9): 697～720. [21]Malhotra, S., P., Zhu and T. H. Reus. 2015. “Anchoring on the Acquisition Premium Decisions of Others,” Strategic Management Journal, 36(12):1866～1876. [22]Pikulina, E., L. Renneboog and P. N. Tobler. 2017. “Overconfidence and Investment: An Experimental Approach,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 43(4):175～192. [23]Tversky,A. and D. Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185(4157):1124～1131.
