Heater, Nallareddy, and Venkatachalam (2021), hereafter HNV, find that aggregate merger and acquisition (M&A) activity explains the ability of aggregate accruals to predict market-wide returns. In this discussion, we delineate HNV's contribution to accounting literature and provide a review of the emerging stream of micro-to-macro accounting research. We also discuss HNV's findings in relation to research beyond accounting, including the literature on aggregate return prediction and mergers and acquisitions. Our discussion draws parallels between HNV's results and prior empirical evidence pertaining to aggregate investment and merger waves and identifies several puzzling inconsistencies. These inconsistencies highlight the lack of a clearly specified mechanism behind the return-predictive ability of aggregate M&A accruals. Finally, we point out the challenges posed by the small sample size and noisy measures of M&A accruals that may affect HNV's inferences. We conclude by suggesting several directions for future research.

We examine 12-month returns following disclosure of first-time going concern (GC) opinions in the U.S. and Australia. We find no evidence of significant negative abnormal returns associated with GC opinions in Australia. In the U.S., negative abnormal returns subsequent to GC opinions are sensitive to choice of expected returns—notably, there are no significant negative abnormal returns when using factor models or after controlling for momentum. Overall, contrary to Taffler, Lu, Kausar's [2004. In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 38, 263–285.] U.K. results, we are unable to document a market anomaly in the U.S. or Australia associated with GC opinions.