Fraud Allegations and Government Contracting

Jonas  Heese; Gerardo  Pérez Cavazos

Article | Journal of Accounting Research | June 2019

Fraud Allegations and Government Contracting

by Jonas Heese and Gerardo Pérez Cavazos

Abstract

This paper examines whether fraud allegations affect firms’ contracting with the government. Using a dataset of whistleblower allegations brought under the False Claims Act against firms accused of defrauding the government, we find that federal agencies do not reduce the total dollar volume of contracts with accused firms; however, they substitute approximately 14% of the harder-to-monitor cost-plus contracts for fixed-price contracts. This effect is concentrated in the procurement of services and explained by contract and service substitution. Lastly, we find that after the conclusion of the investigation, the government reduces the contract dollar volume by approximately 15% for cases that resulted in a settlement. Our findings indicate that contract-design changes are used to mitigate uncertainty in suppliers’ reputation.

Keywords: whistleblower; Fraud Allegations; False Claims Act; Government Contracting; Risk Allocation; Government and Politics; Contracts; Crime and Corruption; Risk and Uncertainty; Business and Government Relations;

Format: Print

SSRN Find at Harvard

Citation:

Heese, Jonas, and Gerardo Pérez Cavazos. "Fraud Allegations and Government Contracting." Journal of Accounting Research 57, no. 3 (June 2019): 675–719.

In May 2020, an analyst was assessing eHealth’s performance. eHealth was an online / tele-sales broker of health insurance products. The stock had recently hit all-time highs, closing at a peak of $146 on March 4, 2020. But now, May 4, 2020, eHealth traded at $103. The recent fall had wiped nearly $1.0B from the company’s market capitalization because well-known short seller Carson Block had released a short-report on the company. Carson Block argued that eHealth’s management had undertaken “massive stock promotion.” In the report, Block said that eHealth’s adoption of the new revenue recognition standard – ASC 606 – inflated revenue and masked the fact that eHealth was losing money on each new policy that it sold.
Still, eHealth’s valuation remained elevated at 3.3x FY2021E Revenue, 21x FY2021E adjusted net income, even assuming away accounting uncertainty. In addition, the mean consensus share price target as of May 4, 2020 was $179.
Did the latest news provide a buying opportunity? Or was it best to avoid eHealth, even perhaps consider shorting the company?

In March 2020, as coronavirus reduced demand for air travel, an analyst was forecasting American Airlines’ (American’s) first quarter financial results. To develop a forecast, she needed to familiarize herself with Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842),” passed four years earlier by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. ASU 2016-02 required companies to disclose all leases on their balance sheets, but it made an exception for leases with variable payments, allowing companies to leave such leases off-balance sheet. The Wall Street Journal estimated that more than 50% of American’s leases remained off-balance sheet due to the exclusion of variable leases. Should American and other companies be allowed to leave variable lease payments off-balance sheet? How did the decision to leave these payments off-balance sheet affect companies’ risk profiles and valuations?

Faculty & Research

Fraud Allegations and Government Contracting

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors