Knowledge that Transforms
To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.
36 results
✕ Clear filters
IFC
IFC
The discovery and reporting of internal control deficiencies prior to SOX-mandated audits
We use internal control deficiency (ICD) disclosures prior to mandated internal control audits to investigate economic factors that expose firms to control failures and managements’ incentives to discover and report control problems. We find that, relative to non-disclosers, firms disclosing ICDs have more complex operations, recent organizational changes, greater accounting risk, more auditor resignations and have fewer resources available for internal control. Regarding incentives to discover and report internal control problems, ICD firms have more prior SEC enforcement actions and financial restatements, are more likely to use a dominant audit firm, and have more concentrated institutional ownership.
Was the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 really this costly? A discussion of evidence from event returns and going-private decisions
This paper discusses evidence on the costs of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) from stock returns and going-private decisions. Zhang, [2007. Economic consequences of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. Journal of Accounting and Economics, doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.07.002] analyzes returns around legislative events and concludes that SOX imposes significant costs on firms. Engel, et al. [2007. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act and firms’ going-private decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.02.002] examine going-private decisions and point to unintended consequences. Both studies are carefully conducted and deserve praise for tackling an important issue. However, as my discussion highlights, several key findings may not be attributable to SOX and we should exercise caution in interpreting the evidence. While it is not implausible that one-size-fits-all regulation imposes substantial costs on firms, we presently do not have much SOX-related evidence to support this conclusion.
How do accounting variables explain stock price movements? Theory and evidence
This paper provides theory and evidence showing how accounting variables explain cross-sectional stock returns. Based on Zhang, G. [2000. Accounting information, capital investment decisions, and equity valuation: theory and empirical implications. Journal of Accounting Research 38, 271–295], who relates equity value to accounting measures of underlying operations, we derive returns as a function of earnings yield, equity capital investment, and changes in profitability, growth opportunities, and discount rates. Empirical results confirm the predicted roles of all identified factors. The model explains about 20% of the cross-sectional return variation, with cash-flow-related factors (as opposed to changes in discount rates) accounting for most of the explanatory power. The properties of the model are robust across various subsamples and periods.
The roles of task-specific forecasting experience and innate ability in understanding analyst forecasting performance
Considerable debate exists about what analyst experience measures and whether analysts learn from their experiences. Extant research has argued that once innate ability is considered, analysts’ general and firm-specific experiences are not relevant to understanding their forecasting performance. We argue that measures of experience need to be expanded to also include task-specific experience. Our results reveal that analysts’ forecast accuracy is associated with both their innate ability and task-specific experience. In addition, we find that forecast accuracy and task-specific experience are most highly correlated for those analysts who survive the longest and, thus, presumably have the greatest innate abilities.
Does earnings guidance affect market returns? The nature and information content of aggregate earnings guidance
We investigate whether earnings guidance affects aggregate stock returns through its effects on expectations about overall earnings performance and/or aggregate expected returns. We find that aggregate guidance, especially relative levels of quarterly downward guidance, is associated with analyst- and time-series-based measures of aggregate earnings news. We find more modest evidence that guidance, again, largely downward guidance, is associated with market returns—market returns appear to respond to guidance toward the end of each calendar quarter, when most earnings preannouncements are released, and there is some evidence that firm-level guidance affects market returns in short windows around its release.
Investor protection and the information content of annual earnings announcements: International evidence
We draw on the investor protection literature to identify structural factors in the financial reporting environment that are likely to explain cross-country differences in the information content of annual earnings announcements. Using data from over 50,000 annual earnings announcements in 26 countries, we find that annual earnings announcements are more informative in countries with higher quality earnings or better enforced insider trading laws, and that annual earnings announcements are less informative in countries with more frequent interim financial reporting. We also find that, on average, earnings announcements are more informative in countries with strong investor protection institutions.
A discussion of ‘corporate disclosure by family firms’
Using a unique empirical setting, family firms in the S&P 500, Ali et al. [Ali, A., Chen, T.-Y., Radhakrishnan, S., 2007. Corporate disclosures by family firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.01.006] contribute to a growing body of research on the relation between corporate governance and corporate disclosure quality. Using an indicator variable for sub-sample membership as an instrument for differing agency costs, the authors interpret their findings as consistent with family firms facing lower overall agency costs and providing higher quality corporate disclosures. However, their empirical findings are open to alternative interpretations and in totality present relatively weak, indirect evidence of a relation between corporate governance and the quality of corporate disclosure.