This paper focuses on earnings differentials in the for-profit and private nonprofit sectors, with specific reference to lawyers. An earnings equation for private lawyers is estimated and is used to predict what the nonprofit sector "public interest" lawyers could earn in the private sector. The finding is that the public interest lawyers are paid substantially less, that they know this, and that the financial sacrifice is permanent. Next, a job choice equation is estimated which suggests that those lawyers who choose public interest work have different "preferences" from those who choose private law practices. The difference may help to account for the willingness of the public interest lawyers to accept lower monetary rewards. Further research is needed to determine whether the differences found for lawyers in the two sectors are also found in other industries, and whether such differences are found only at the level of management or at lower levels. The goal is improved understanding of behavioral differences between for-profit and nonprofit firms.

Peter A. Silhan, The Effects of Segmenting Quarterly Sales and Margins on Extrapolative Forecasts of Conglomerate Earnings: Extension and Replication, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 341-347

SFAS No. 55, Cash yield test, Common stock equivalency test, Convertible bonds

Until 1974, firms could capitalize or expense all or part of their research and development (R&D) costs. Managerial choice between these two alternatives is hypothesized to be affected by the existence of debt covenants which employ accounting numbers relating to leverage, interest coverage, and ability to pay dividends. In addition, the use of public versus private debt is hypothesized to affect the accounting choice due to differential renegotiation costs. Lastly, a political cost hypothesis is tested. This study uses a multivariate statistical technique, the generalized jackknife. The results suggest that firms which capitalized R&D costs were more highly levered, used more public debt, were closer to dividend restrictions, and were smaller than firms which expensed R&D costs.

Quarterly earnings, Predictive ability, Overfitting bias, Earnings forecasts

The employment and earnings effects of the minimum wage are estimated by parameterizing a hypothesized relationship between underlying market employment and wage relationships versus observed wage and employment distributions in the presence of a legislated minimum. If there had been no minimum during the 1973-78 period, we estimate that employment among out-of-school men 16-24 would have been approximately 4% higher than it was. Among young men 16-19 employment would have been about 7% higher; among those 20-24, 2% higher. Employment among black youth 16-24 would have been almost 6% higher than it was, compared with somewhat less than 4% for white youth. Although it is sometimes argued that the adverse employment effects of the minimum are offset by increased earnings, we find virtually no earnings effect. Had the minimum not been raised over the 1973-78 period, inflation would have greatly moderated the adverse employment effects of the minimum, with approximately two-thirds of the potential employment gains from elimination of the minimum attained. The weight of our evidence is inconsistent with a general increase in youth wage rates with increases in the real minimum. Our findings support the hypothesis that the effects of the minimum are concentrated on youth with subminimum market wage rates.

Auditing, Financial forecasts