Understanding earnings quality - MIT Sloan School of Management

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.1.4 Benchmarking This section covers studies that use small positive differences between reported earnings and any benchmark as a measure of earnings quality. A significant component of this literature is related to the “kink” in the distribution of reported earnings around zero: a statistically small number of firms with small losses and a statistically large number of firms with small profits (Hayn, 1995; Burgstahler and Dichev, 1997). A common but controversial interpretation of this pattern is that firms with unmanaged earnings just less than the heuristic target of zero intentionally manage earnings just enough to report a small profit. Thus, small profits (or avoiding small losses) are a de facto indication of earnings management. Likewise, small earnings increases are a proxy for earnings management based on the finding in Burgstahler and Dichev (1997) of a statistically unusual number of firms with small decreases in earnings, and meeting or beating an analyst forecast is a proxy for earnings management based on the finding in Dechow, Richardson, and Tuna (2001) of a “kink” in earnings around consensus analyst forecasts. The consequences studies frequently use small positive surprises (or avoidance of negative surprises) as a proxy for managed earnings, and the authors make predictions about the consequences of the assumed diminished quality. In the determinants studies, the most common research question is whether the assumption that is made in the consequences studies – that small positive surprises are more likely to represent managed earnings – is justified. Determinants of small positive profits: Several studies suggest that small profits are not evidence of earnings management. Dechow, Richardson, and Tuna (2003), in a large-sample study, find no relation between realizations of small profits and increases in discretionary accruals. Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2007) suggest that asymmetric taxes, rather than opportunistic choices, can 51
explain the kink. Durtschi and Easton (2005) suggest that the kink is due to statistical and sample bias issues. Several types of results, however, suggest a relation between small profits and other recognized proxies for earnings management. First, there is a correlation between small profits and discretionary accruals in industry-specific and/or account-specific studies. Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2003) find a positive correlation between earnings management of loss reserves and small profit realizations at P&C insurers. Phillips, Pincus, and Rego (2003) find an association between deferred tax expense and avoiding losses. In both studies, the results are subject to the caveat that neither the accruals metric nor small profits represent earnings management, but the two variables are correlated, perhaps as explained in Beaver et al. (2007). Firms that were able to use more aggressive revenue recognition techniques, which might provide greater opportunities for earnings management, are more likely to report small profits and are less likely to report small losses (Altamuro, Beatty, and Weber, 2005). Second, the kink is strongest in the fourth quarter when studies assert that the incentives for earnings management are predicted to be higher (Kerstein and Rai, 2007; Jacob and Jorgensen, 2007). Third, low audit effort measured by hours worked, which might mitigate opportunities for earnings management, is associated with small positive profits (Caramanis and Lennox, 2008). Determinants of meeting or beating targets: The literature on the determinants of meeting or beating analyst forecasts and reporting small earnings increases includes three types of analyses. In the first type, the study focuses on the mechanisms/tools that firms use to produce earnings that just meet or beat a target. Firms make accounting choices such as managing tax expense (Dhaliwal, Gleason, and Mills, 2004); managing the classification of items within the income statement (McVay, 2006); and managing the creation and reversal of restructuring charge accruals/cushions 52
Page 1 and 2: *Title Page/Author Identifier Page/
Page 3 and 4: Street equity valuation model as ea
Page 5 and 6: earnings quality proxy is the indep
Page 7 and 8: of fundamental earnings will be a f
Page 9 and 10: contributions of the fundamental co
Page 11 and 12: accruals, in total or individually,
Page 13 and 14: While we identify these contradicti
Page 15 and 16: Proxies for asymmetric timeliness b
Page 17 and 18: sample. Hence, sample specific char
Page 19 and 20: unintentional misstatements, which
Page 21 and 22: Empirical studies have examined mul
Page 23 and 24: there are (in theory) predictable a
Page 25 and 26: is primarily driven by the firm’s
Page 27 and 28: methodology. Studies could make uni
Page 29 and 30: The discussion of earnings persiste
Page 31 and 32: and documents that β2 < β1, which
Page 33 and 34: 1993). 12 The studies find conflict
Page 35 and 36: Xie (2001) uses the Jones model (di
Page 37 and 38: sophisticated investors do understa
Page 39 and 40: measurement. Nwaeze, Yang, and Yin
Page 41 and 42: and better reflects revenue manipul
Page 43 and 44: All of the accruals models can be e
Page 45 and 46: Second, investors seem to recognize
Page 47 and 48: fact improve predictability relativ
Page 49 and 50: lower book values of assets (higher
Page 51: than code law countries. The differ
Page 55 and 56: with overstated net asset values ar
Page 57 and 58: earnings quality. The studies speci
Page 59 and 60: to conservatism, which is defined a
Page 61 and 62: they assert proxy for lower indepen
Page 63 and 64: paper, however, finds that firms ar
Page 65 and 66: Debt covenants: Dechow et al. (1996
Page 67 and 68: eadjustments in valuations associat
Page 69 and 70: ange of misstatements and they are
Page 71 and 72: significantly change the historical
Page 73 and 74: the firm’s public accountants mus
Page 75 and 76: whether disclosure of material weak
Page 77 and 78: with “shareholder” corporate go
Page 79 and 80: accruals) that stems from the confl
Page 81 and 82: observable variables such as natura
Page 83 and 84: and do not appear to be made to boo
Page 85 and 86: firms identified in the AAERs than
Page 87 and 88: past service costs). Zmijewski and
Page 89 and 90: 5.2 Financial reporting practices a
Page 91 and 92: 5.2.2 Other financial reporting pra
Page 93 and 94: The notion that accounting method c
Page 95 and 96: quality and the quality of M&A deci
Page 97 and 98: In countries with high ownership co
Page 99 and 100: for the AAER firm executives than f
Page 101 and 102: Dechow and Sloan (1991), who study
Page 103 and 104:
management related to incentives pr
Page 105 and 106:
nonaudit fees) and discretionary ac
Page 107 and 108:
errors when litigation risk is high
Page 109 and 110:
to suffer from omitted correlated v
Page 111 and 112:
capital accruals as a proxy. Perry
Page 113 and 114:
how the incentives provided by the
Page 115 and 116:
(Jones, 1991); 2) Department of Jus
Page 117 and 118:
5.6.3 Tax regulations Several studi
Page 119 and 120:
importance of implicit claims, they
Page 121 and 122:
attention (Aboody et al. , 1999). 7
Page 123 and 124:
of internal control procedure defic
Page 125 and 126:
differences, which investors ration
Page 127 and 128:
Bid-ask spread: Evidence on the ass
Page 129 and 130:
low accrual quality stock that are
Page 131 and 132:
6.1.5 Summary To summarize, the evi
Page 133 and 134:
plaintiffs will prevail in sharehol
Page 135 and 136:
income increasing restatement firms
Page 137 and 138:
evisions do not fully account for t
Page 139 and 140:
the fact that some disclosures are
Page 141 and 142:
Therefore, the proxies are not meas
Page 143 and 144:
Amir, E., Harris, T., Venuti, E., 1
Page 145 and 146:
Beasley, M., 1996. An empirical ana
Page 147 and 148:
Burgstahler, D., Kinney, W., Martin
Page 149 and 150:
Considine, J., Mensah, Y., Oakes, L
Page 151 and 152:
Desai, H., Rajgopal, S., Venkatacha
Page 153 and 154:
Farber, D., 2005. Restoring trust a
Page 155 and 156:
Gong, G., Louis, H., Sun, A., 2008.
Page 157 and 158:
Hung, M., 2000. Accounting standard
Page 159 and 160:
Kothari, S., Leone, A., Wasley, C.,
Page 161 and 162:
Malmquist, D., 1990. Efficient cont
Page 163 and 164:
Phillips, F., 1999. Auditor attenti
Page 165 and 166:
Tucker, J., Zarowin, P., 2006. Does
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 1. Summary of the investigat
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 3: Key links between determi
Page 171 and 172:
Table 1. Categories of “Earnings
Page 173 and 174:
Exhibit 1: Summary of earnings qual
Page 175:
Exhibit 2: Summary of widely used m
show all

Understanding earnings quality - MIT Sloan School of Management

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?