Knowledge that Transforms

Financial reporting, Multidimensional Graphics, Bankruptcy, Predictive ability

Decision making, Human judgment, Decision aids, Opportunity costs

Auditing, Internal controls, Audit judgement, Consensus

Reserve recognition accounting, ASR No. 253, Market reaction, Mandatory disclosure

Dennis Murray, The Effect of Certain Research Design Choices on the Assessment of the Market's Reaction to LIFO Changes: A Methodological Study, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 128-140

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

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

Internal control systems, Individual judgement, Group judgment, Decision making

Allocation of indirect costs among products sometimes yields a paradoxical result that unit cost for each product may increase under one method of allocation and may decrease for each product under another method. The Stalcup Paper Company case illustrate such behaviour of costs at the same, time, provides an accounting example of Simpon’s Reversal Paradox Simpson (1951), which Blyth (1972) discussed in the statistics literature. As with other paradoxes, this cost allocation paradox disappears upon closer scrutiny. This paper examines the properties of allocated costs in order to arrive at an intuitive understanding of the results. The relationship of the cost allocation problem to Simpson’s Paradox and the implications of the analysis for cost control are briefly discussed. Necessary and sufficient condition for occurrence of the Paradox is also given. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Accounting changes, Analyst forecasts, Forecast accuracy, Earnings announcement