In this paper we measure the publishing productivity of New Zealand university accounting departments for the period 1992-1997. Publication productivity is assessed in terms of both the quantity of articles published and the quality of the journals where the articles appear. Data is obtained from the Accounting and Tax Index, ABI Inform and directly from Australian and New Zealand journals. To achieve a comprehensive assessment of publishing productivity the articles are weighted using various measures of quality. We make particular use of the quality rankings develop by Zeff (1996). Not surprisingly, none of the universities ranked highly in all categories we examined. Which university did best depends on the evaluative criteria the reader wishes to employ.
{"title":"A Study of Accounting Faculty Publishing Productivity in New Zealand","authors":"C. Durden, Brett R. Wilkinson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.149892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.149892","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we measure the publishing productivity of New Zealand university accounting departments for the period 1992-1997. Publication productivity is assessed in terms of both the quantity of articles published and the quality of the journals where the articles appear. Data is obtained from the Accounting and Tax Index, ABI Inform and directly from Australian and New Zealand journals. To achieve a comprehensive assessment of publishing productivity the articles are weighted using various measures of quality. We make particular use of the quality rankings develop by Zeff (1996). Not surprisingly, none of the universities ranked highly in all categories we examined. Which university did best depends on the evaluative criteria the reader wishes to employ.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126558177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines the value relevance of financial accounting in Thailand prior to and during the decline in the value of the Baht in July 1997. The study examines the association between security prices from the Stock Exchange of Thailand and accounting book values and earnings from first quarter 1992 through third quarter 1997. Our results show that Thai earnings and book values are positively and significantly related to security prices although to a lessor extent than for United States and British firms. Thai book values and earnings each have incremental information content relative to the other. We find that the value relevance of book values in Thailand are increasing significantly over time, particularly after the decline in the value of the Baht in July 1997. However, the number of Thai firms reporting losses increased in the second and third quarters of 1997. Thus, our evidence that the value-relevance of Thai book values increased is consistent with evidence from US firms that value relevance shifts from earnings to book values when earnings are negative. We find no evidence, however, of change in the value relevance of earnings.
{"title":"The Value Relevance of Accounting Information in Thailand Around the 1997 Decline in the Value of the Baht","authors":"R. Graham, Raymond D. King, Jack C. Bailes","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.138148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.138148","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the value relevance of financial accounting in Thailand prior to and during the decline in the value of the Baht in July 1997. The study examines the association between security prices from the Stock Exchange of Thailand and accounting book values and earnings from first quarter 1992 through third quarter 1997. Our results show that Thai earnings and book values are positively and significantly related to security prices although to a lessor extent than for United States and British firms. Thai book values and earnings each have incremental information content relative to the other. We find that the value relevance of book values in Thailand are increasing significantly over time, particularly after the decline in the value of the Baht in July 1997. However, the number of Thai firms reporting losses increased in the second and third quarters of 1997. Thus, our evidence that the value-relevance of Thai book values increased is consistent with evidence from US firms that value relevance shifts from earnings to book values when earnings are negative. We find no evidence, however, of change in the value relevance of earnings.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122719955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Accounting firms are currently re‐engineering their audit processes with the aim of delivering a quality audit more efficiently. One area of potential efficiency gains is the sequential and hierarchical workpaper review process. This study examines the potential for specialization to improve review efficiency and reviewer confidence. Auditing literature advises focusing each review level on specific kinds of errors (i.e., seniors on mechanical errors and managers on conceptual errors), rather than having seniors and managers perform successive all‐encompassing reviews. We find that seniors but not managers performing specialized reviews were more confident in their reviews. However, both seniors and managers performing specialized reviews required on average more time than those performing all‐encompassing reviews. Additional analysis suggests that specialized reviewers were also less calibrated. We attribute these results to specialization interfering with auditors' mental model of review. The results su...
{"title":"The Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review on Review Efficiency and Reviewers' Confidence","authors":"E. Bamber, R. Ramsay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.141600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.141600","url":null,"abstract":"Accounting firms are currently re‐engineering their audit processes with the aim of delivering a quality audit more efficiently. One area of potential efficiency gains is the sequential and hierarchical workpaper review process. This study examines the potential for specialization to improve review efficiency and reviewer confidence. Auditing literature advises focusing each review level on specific kinds of errors (i.e., seniors on mechanical errors and managers on conceptual errors), rather than having seniors and managers perform successive all‐encompassing reviews. We find that seniors but not managers performing specialized reviews were more confident in their reviews. However, both seniors and managers performing specialized reviews required on average more time than those performing all‐encompassing reviews. Additional analysis suggests that specialized reviewers were also less calibrated. We attribute these results to specialization interfering with auditors' mental model of review. The results su...","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123673300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The accounting for purchased goodwill generates greater interest whenever merger and acquisition activity is robust, as it has been recently. Standard setters have been active, too. The United Kingdom's Accounting Standards Board (ASB) has issued a new standard on goodwill accounting, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) has issued standards (approved but not yet released) on both business combinations and intangible assets and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has undertaken a project on accounting for business combinations, including goodwill accounting. In the United States, the amount paid for goodwill in a purchase business combination currently must be amortized over a period not to exceed 40 years. To avoid the resulting drag on reported earnings, many companies seek to account for their combinations as poolings of interests so that purchased goodwill is not recorded and amortized. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of large combinations in the United States are recorded as poolings, although that treatment is much less common in other parts of the world. For example, poolings are prohibited under Australian standards, and under Canadian, U.K. and IASC standards they are restricted to combinations in which an acquirer cannot be identified. The growing globalization of capital markets is reducing the tolerance for continued differences in accounting standards, including those for business combinations. Since the United States is perceived as being out of step with other countries, that raises the question of whether U.S. standards should be revised, which has, in turn, placed the spotlight on goodwill accounting. Some believe that goodwill should be recognized as an asset, while others argue that it should not be. The question of whether goodwill is an asset has not been addressed in the context of the conceptual definition of assets in FASB (1985) Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial Statements.1 Determining whether goodwill is an asset, entails considering the nature of goodwill in order to ascertain whether it possesses the essential characteristics of an asset under the FASB's definition. At its November 19, 1997, board meeting, the Board decided that goodwill meets the assets definition in Concepts Statement No. 6 and this commentary presents the reasoning behind that decision. Whether goodwill is an asset is the first of many issues the Board must address in its business combinations project. However, it is one of the most fundamental issues because the Board must have a common understanding of what goodwill is before it can address how to account for goodwill. If the Board had decided that goodwill did not meet the assets definition, the ensuing discussions in its business combinations project would have been markedly different. Although the FASB had a project on business combinations on its agenda two decades ago, it did not complete the project nor did it address that question in the con
{"title":"Commentary: Is Goodwill an Asset?","authors":"L. Johnson, K. Petrone","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.143839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.143839","url":null,"abstract":"The accounting for purchased goodwill generates greater interest whenever merger and acquisition activity is robust, as it has been recently. Standard setters have been active, too. The United Kingdom's Accounting Standards Board (ASB) has issued a new standard on goodwill accounting, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) has issued standards (approved but not yet released) on both business combinations and intangible assets and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has undertaken a project on accounting for business combinations, including goodwill accounting. In the United States, the amount paid for goodwill in a purchase business combination currently must be amortized over a period not to exceed 40 years. To avoid the resulting drag on reported earnings, many companies seek to account for their combinations as poolings of interests so that purchased goodwill is not recorded and amortized. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of large combinations in the United States are recorded as poolings, although that treatment is much less common in other parts of the world. For example, poolings are prohibited under Australian standards, and under Canadian, U.K. and IASC standards they are restricted to combinations in which an acquirer cannot be identified. The growing globalization of capital markets is reducing the tolerance for continued differences in accounting standards, including those for business combinations. Since the United States is perceived as being out of step with other countries, that raises the question of whether U.S. standards should be revised, which has, in turn, placed the spotlight on goodwill accounting. Some believe that goodwill should be recognized as an asset, while others argue that it should not be. The question of whether goodwill is an asset has not been addressed in the context of the conceptual definition of assets in FASB (1985) Concepts Statement No. 6, Elements of Financial Statements.1 Determining whether goodwill is an asset, entails considering the nature of goodwill in order to ascertain whether it possesses the essential characteristics of an asset under the FASB's definition. At its November 19, 1997, board meeting, the Board decided that goodwill meets the assets definition in Concepts Statement No. 6 and this commentary presents the reasoning behind that decision. Whether goodwill is an asset is the first of many issues the Board must address in its business combinations project. However, it is one of the most fundamental issues because the Board must have a common understanding of what goodwill is before it can address how to account for goodwill. If the Board had decided that goodwill did not meet the assets definition, the ensuing discussions in its business combinations project would have been markedly different. Although the FASB had a project on business combinations on its agenda two decades ago, it did not complete the project nor did it address that question in the con","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127117441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay offers an overview of the theoretical and empirical research on tax evasion, delineating the variety of factors affecting noncompliance and examining possible remedies. Particular emphasis is placed on the institutional and procedural rules governing the tax enforcement policy.Revised version available: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271168
{"title":"Tax Evasion and Tax Compliance","authors":"L. Franzoni","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.137430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.137430","url":null,"abstract":"This essay offers an overview of the theoretical and empirical research on tax evasion, delineating the variety of factors affecting noncompliance and examining possible remedies. Particular emphasis is placed on the institutional and procedural rules governing the tax enforcement policy.Revised version available: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271168","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122382849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. Barber, Reuven Lehavy, M. McNichols, Brett Trueman
We document that purchasing ~selling short! stocks with the most ~least! favorable consensus recommendations, in conjunction with daily portfolio rebalancing and a timely response to recommendation changes, yield annual abnormal gross returns greater than four percent. Less frequent portfolio rebalancing or a delay in reacting to recommendation changes diminishes these returns; however, they remain significant for the least favorably rated stocks. We also show that high trading levels are required to capture the excess returns generated by the strategies analyzed, entailing substantial transactions costs and leading to abnormal net returns for these strategies that are not reliably greater than zero. THIS STUDY EXAMINES WHETHER INVESTORS can profit from the publicly available recommendations of security analysts. Academic theory and Wall Street practice are clearly at odds regarding this issue. On the one hand, the semistrong form of market efficiency posits that investors should not be able to trade profitably on the basis of publicly available information, such as analyst recommendations. On the other hand, research departments of brokerage houses spend large sums of money on security analysis, presumably because these firms and their clients believe its use can generate superior returns.
{"title":"Can Investors Profit from the Prophets? Consensus Analyst Recommendations and Stock Returns","authors":"B. Barber, Reuven Lehavy, M. McNichols, Brett Trueman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.137400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.137400","url":null,"abstract":"We document that purchasing ~selling short! stocks with the most ~least! favorable consensus recommendations, in conjunction with daily portfolio rebalancing and a timely response to recommendation changes, yield annual abnormal gross returns greater than four percent. Less frequent portfolio rebalancing or a delay in reacting to recommendation changes diminishes these returns; however, they remain significant for the least favorably rated stocks. We also show that high trading levels are required to capture the excess returns generated by the strategies analyzed, entailing substantial transactions costs and leading to abnormal net returns for these strategies that are not reliably greater than zero. THIS STUDY EXAMINES WHETHER INVESTORS can profit from the publicly available recommendations of security analysts. Academic theory and Wall Street practice are clearly at odds regarding this issue. On the one hand, the semistrong form of market efficiency posits that investors should not be able to trade profitably on the basis of publicly available information, such as analyst recommendations. On the other hand, research departments of brokerage houses spend large sums of money on security analysis, presumably because these firms and their clients believe its use can generate superior returns.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115827569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper develops and analyzes two models of asset valuation from which the appropriate discounts for lack of marketability, blockage, and minority ownership are derived. The analysis of the first model shows that a lack of prospective buyers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a discount for lack of marketability. Heterogeneous beliefs among prospective buyers regarding the value of the asset are also required. A consequence of this result is that the proper marketability discount for an interest in a partnership that holds easily valued investment assets is zero. Analysis of the second model shows that a discount for owning a minority interest reflects the ability of a majority owner to indirectly transfer wealth to himself at the expense of the minority owner. If a discount exists, it is decreasing in the cost of the transfer to the corporation and decreasing in the ownership interest of the majority shareholder.
{"title":"Economic Foundations of Valuation Discounts","authors":"R. Sansing","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.150628","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.150628","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops and analyzes two models of asset valuation from which the appropriate discounts for lack of marketability, blockage, and minority ownership are derived. The analysis of the first model shows that a lack of prospective buyers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a discount for lack of marketability. Heterogeneous beliefs among prospective buyers regarding the value of the asset are also required. A consequence of this result is that the proper marketability discount for an interest in a partnership that holds easily valued investment assets is zero. Analysis of the second model shows that a discount for owning a minority interest reflects the ability of a majority owner to indirectly transfer wealth to himself at the expense of the minority owner. If a discount exists, it is decreasing in the cost of the transfer to the corporation and decreasing in the ownership interest of the majority shareholder.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125533365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examine whether the application of basic concepts of fundamental analysis can yield significant abnormal returns. Using a collection of signals that reflect traditional rules of fundamental analysis related to contemporaneous changes in inventories, accounts receivables, gross margins, selling expenses, capital expenditures, effective tax rates, inventory methods, audit qualifications, and labor force sales productivity, we form portfolios that earn an average 12 month cumulative size-adjusted abnormal return of 13.2 percent. We find evidence that the fundamental signals provide information about future returns that is associated with future earnings news. Moreover, a significant portion of the abnormal returns is generated around subsequent earnings announcements. These findings are consistent with the underlying focus of fundamental analysis on the prediction of earnings. Significant abnormal returns to the fundamental strategy are not earned after the end of one year of return cumulation, indicating little support for the idea that the signals capture information about multiple-year-ahead earnings not immediately impounded in price or about long-term shifts in firm risk. Additional analysis on a holdout sample suggests that the strategy continues to generate abnormal returns in a period subsequent to the introduction of the fundamental signals in the literature, and contextual analyses indicate that the strategy performs better for certain types of firms (e.g. firms with prior bad news).
{"title":"Abnormal Returns to a Fundamental Analysis Strategy","authors":"Jeffery Abarbanell, Brian J. Bushee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.40740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.40740","url":null,"abstract":"We examine whether the application of basic concepts of fundamental analysis can yield significant abnormal returns. Using a collection of signals that reflect traditional rules of fundamental analysis related to contemporaneous changes in inventories, accounts receivables, gross margins, selling expenses, capital expenditures, effective tax rates, inventory methods, audit qualifications, and labor force sales productivity, we form portfolios that earn an average 12 month cumulative size-adjusted abnormal return of 13.2 percent. We find evidence that the fundamental signals provide information about future returns that is associated with future earnings news. Moreover, a significant portion of the abnormal returns is generated around subsequent earnings announcements. These findings are consistent with the underlying focus of fundamental analysis on the prediction of earnings. Significant abnormal returns to the fundamental strategy are not earned after the end of one year of return cumulation, indicating little support for the idea that the signals capture information about multiple-year-ahead earnings not immediately impounded in price or about long-term shifts in firm risk. Additional analysis on a holdout sample suggests that the strategy continues to generate abnormal returns in a period subsequent to the introduction of the fundamental signals in the literature, and contextual analyses indicate that the strategy performs better for certain types of firms (e.g. firms with prior bad news).","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128834200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper investigates the association between corporate voluntary disclosure and management's discretion over accounting choices. In particular, it examines the role of earnings management in mitigating costs associated with management earnings forecast errors. The empirical results are consistent with the prediction that managers, fearing costly legal actions by shareholders and loss of reputation for credibility, use discretionary accruals to reduce their forecasting errors. Specifically, the paper documents that managers who overestimate the earnings number manage reported earnings upward, and that the extent of discretionary accruals is associated with various securities litigation cost factors and the amount of management's accounting flexibility. Having identified the role of accounting discretion in mitigating costs associated with management earnings forecast errors, the study raises the possibility that the degree of accounting discretion affects corporate voluntary disclosure policies.
{"title":"On the Association between Voluntary Disclosure and Earnings Management","authors":"Ron Kasznik","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.15062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.15062","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the association between corporate voluntary disclosure and management's discretion over accounting choices. In particular, it examines the role of earnings management in mitigating costs associated with management earnings forecast errors. The empirical results are consistent with the prediction that managers, fearing costly legal actions by shareholders and loss of reputation for credibility, use discretionary accruals to reduce their forecasting errors. Specifically, the paper documents that managers who overestimate the earnings number manage reported earnings upward, and that the extent of discretionary accruals is associated with various securities litigation cost factors and the amount of management's accounting flexibility. Having identified the role of accounting discretion in mitigating costs associated with management earnings forecast errors, the study raises the possibility that the degree of accounting discretion affects corporate voluntary disclosure policies.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115125544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study adds to the literature that attempts to explain firms' accounting method choices by expanding the traditional set of independent variables to include those derived from implicit claims between the firm and its customers suppliers employees and short-term creditors. On large samples of surviving firms over five non-adjacent years we find that implicit claims variables explain on average 13% (and never less than 10%) of the cross-sectional variation in combined scores for inventory and depreciation methods. We find that our implicit claims variables remain incrementally significant when we include independent variables found to have explanatory power in prior studies (i.e. leverage bonus compensation tax and regulatory/political exposure variables). Taken together implicit claims and traditional variables explain on average 19% of the variation in combined scores for inventory and depreciation methods (and never less than 16.6%).
{"title":"Stakeholders' Implicit Claims and Accounting Method Choice","authors":"R. M. Bowen, L. DuCharme, D. Shores","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.54424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.54424","url":null,"abstract":"This study adds to the literature that attempts to explain firms' accounting method choices by expanding the traditional set of independent variables to include those derived from implicit claims between the firm and its customers suppliers employees and short-term creditors. On large samples of surviving firms over five non-adjacent years we find that implicit claims variables explain on average 13% (and never less than 10%) of the cross-sectional variation in combined scores for inventory and depreciation methods. We find that our implicit claims variables remain incrementally significant when we include independent variables found to have explanatory power in prior studies (i.e. leverage bonus compensation tax and regulatory/political exposure variables). Taken together implicit claims and traditional variables explain on average 19% of the variation in combined scores for inventory and depreciation methods (and never less than 16.6%).","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121089934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：