A major purpose of the Estes study was to determine, by using questionnaires, the expected usefulness of current cost information for various classes of assets, both current and long term.2 Two assumptions were made in conducting the study: (1) current costs were objectively measurable, and (2) the current cost information would be of a supplementary nature only. The sample was selected from three organizations: the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts, the National Association of Bank Loan Officers and Credit Men (Robert Morris Associates), and the Financial Executives Institute. These groups were chosen because Estes believed they closely paralleled two major financial statement user groups: (1) investors, both current and potential, and (2) lenders. Questionnaires were sent to 300 members from each group. A total of 338 or 37.8% responded. The results of the study were that 81 percent of the item responses

upon establishing a means of distinguishing which of two alternative disclosure treatments is the more -useful. The traditional means of attempting to make such distinction is through rational argumentation. Rational argumentation is very useful in exploring and drawing out the logical implications of alternative treatments, but may not be sufficient to enable selection of the better treatment. Recently attempts have been made to employ the Predictive as the means of distinguishing the better of two alternative accounting measurements. This criterion selects as the better of two alternative accounting measurements the one which has the greater to predict a given event considered to be of particular importance.' Surely the application of the predictive ability criterion in accounting research can accomplish much, but continual effort should be made to bring other research methods to bear on the problem of improving accounting disclosure. This paper presents an effort to develop a criterion

Leverage, Valuation, Net income ratio, Capital gearing

Neil C. Churchill, Audit Recommendations and Management Auditing: A Case Study and Some Remarks, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 4, Empirical Research in Accounting: Selected Studies 1966 (1966), pp. 128-151

Journal Article A Symposium on Monetary Theory: Monetary and Value Theory: Further Comment Get access G. C. Archibald, G. C. Archibald London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar R. C. Lipsey R. C. Lipsey London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 28, Issue 1, October 1960, Pages 50–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296250 Published: 01 October 1960

In a recent article appearing in this journal [2] Jonathan Ingersoll developed a normative multidimensional security pricing model for the individual investor in which he corrected errors in an earlier attempt by William Jean [3] [4] [5] at developing such a model. The purpose of this correction is to clarify and correct certain parts of Ingersoll's correction of Jean's work.

This paper presents an incentive-based theory of the dynamics of the distribution of consumption in the presence of aggregate shocks. The paper builds on the models concerning the distribution of income or consumption and incentive problems of Green (1987), Thomas and Worrall (1991), Phelan and Townsend (1991), and Atkeson and Lucas (1992). By incorporating aggregate production shocks, the model allows an examination of the interactions between individual and aggregate consumption series given incomplete insurance. Further, the methodology outlined allows the incorporation of incentive considerations to macroeconomic environments similar to Rogerson (1988) and Hansen (1985).

Journal Article The Measurement of Utility Get access C. Hillinger C. Hillinger Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1969, Pages 111–116, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296348 Published: 01 January 1969 Article history Received: 19 February 1968 Revision received: 15 July 1968 Published: 01 January 1969