This study identifies several interrelated reasons why firms’ depreciation method choice is likely to influence managers’ capital investment decisions. We find that firms that use accelerated depreciation make significantly larger capital investments than firms that use straight-line depreciation. Further, we find that there has been a migration away from accelerated depreciation to straight-line depreciation over the past two decades. Firms that make such accounting changes make smaller capital investments in the post-change periods than in the pre-change periods. These results suggest that a choice made for external financial reporting purposes influences managers’ capital investment decisions.

This study examines why firms settle their overfunded defined benefit pension plans. Under the new accounting standard (FASB Statement No. 88), companies ‘settling’ their overfunded pension plan can immediately recognize a portion of deffered pension gain as current earnings. Focusing on settlement transactions unaccompanied by asset reversions, we examine financial characteristics of settlement firms, including earnings, debt covenants, management incentive compensation, and firms' risk and financial structures. Our results suggest that firms undertake settlement to offset a decline in earnings and mitigate restrictive debt covenant constraints. However, a settlement firm's systematic risk (beta) does not change after settlement.

Research suggests that the standard model used to detect opportunistic shifting of core expenses to special items is potentially biased. Such bias has been attributed to the use of accruals, including special item related accruals, as a control for the impact of performance on core earnings in this model. This paper provides an improved classification shifting model which both tests for such accruals-related bias and controls for other sources of error in the measurement of shifting. The paper also modifies conventional market rationality tests in accounting research to examine new dimensions of rationality in relation to measurement and valuation of shifting. The main empirical findings are as follows. First, the improved classification shifting model provides strong evidence of shifting and rejects the hypothesis that inclusion of accruals in the model causes bias. Second, estimates of shifted core expenses generated by the improved model exhibit forecasting properties of shifted earnings. Third, rationality test results are broadly consistent with rationality in relation to shifted core expenses but indicate possible partial (ir)rationality in relation to adjusted special items (i.e., special items excluding shifted core expenses). Further analysis of the latter findings, however, suggests they are more likely related to risk than irrationality. Overall, the paper contributes to improved measurement of shifting and highlights the importance of considering rational expectations when examining stock returns associated with shifting.

Disclosures, Management forecasts, Market expectations, Bad news disclosures

In 1976, the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting, and Management (Metcalf Committee) provided data indicating that the eight largest auditing firms in the country (the Eight) are overwhelmingly the major suppliers of audit services to the largest corporations in the United States. The Subcommittee concluded from these data that monopolistic practices by the Big Eight have led to a two-tier structure in the audit industry-one tier consisting of the eight largest auditors and the second tier consisting of all other auditors, with the Big Eight dominating the industry. In the light of these findings, the committee suggested that more activist regulation of the audit industry was needed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Dopuch and Simunic [1980] examined a wide variety of evidence that might tend to support or refute allegations of a lack of competition in the auditing profession. They (D-S) concluded that the industry was competitive, and in a subsequent paper [1982] they argued that many of the apparent monopolistic characteristics of the industry could be explained by a product-differentiation hypothesis. More specifically, they hypothesized that different auditing firms provide auditing services which are perceived by investors to be different in quality, and in particular, that the Big Eight auditors are perceived as being more credible than non-Big Eight auditors. If this is the case, the Big Eight firms would be

Introduced in 1993, Georgia’s HOPE Program sponsors a merit‐based scholarship for students attending in‐state colleges and a grant for those entering technical schools. There are no income restrictions. Comparing Georgia with other southeastern states over the 1988–97 period, HOPE increased freshmen enrollment by 5.9%, or 2,889 students per year, which amounts to only 15% of freshmen scholarship recipients. Four‐year colleges account for most of the gain; a reduction in students leaving the state explains two‐thirds of the 4‐year‐school effect attributable to freshmen who have recently graduated from high school. White and black enrollments increased because of HOPE.

This paper examines the amount of precautionary savings and wealth inequality arising from life-span uncertainty by comparing saving behavior under perfect insurance arrangements with that arising under imperfect arrangements, namely, when longevity risk can be pooled only with members of one's own family. The central findings of the paper are: (1) perfecting insurance arrangements can lower savings in intergenerationally altruistic and life-cycle economies and (2) in altruistic economies perfecting annuity insurance can influence in-equality; indeed, in the long run in the model, switching from imperfect family insurance to perfect insurance can mean the difference between absolute inequality and absolute equality.

We test for fire-sale tendencies in automatic bankruptcy auctions. We find evidence consistent with fire-sale discounts when the auction leads to piecemeal liquidation, but not when the bankrupt firm is acquired as a going concern. Neither industry-wide distress nor the industry affiliation of the buyer affect prices in going-concern sales. Bids are often structured as leveraged buyouts, which relaxes liquidity constraints and reduces bidder underinvestment incentives in the presence of debt overhang. Prices in “prepack” auctions (sales agreements negotiated prior to bankruptcy filing) are on average lower than for in-auction going-concern sales, suggesting that prepacks may help preempt excessive liquidation when the auction is expected to be illiquid. Prepack targets have a greater industry-adjusted probability of refiling for bankruptcy, indicating that liquidation preemption is a risky strategy.