This review explores systematic explanations for the anomalous evidence in the relation between accounting earnings and stock prices. The anomaly is that estimated future abnormal returns are predicted by public information about future earnings, contained in (1) current earnings and (2) current financial statement ratios. The current-earnings anomaly appears due to either market inefficiency or substantial costs of investors acquiring and processing information, the choice depending on one's priors concerning these costs and one's definition of market ‘efficiency’. The financial-statement-information anomaly appears due to accounting ratios proxying for stocks' expected returns. Anomaly seems likely to be a permanent state.

International differences in the demand for accounting income predictably affect the way it incorporates economic income (change in market value) over time. We characterize the `shareholder’ and `stakeholder’ corporate governance models of common and code law countries respectively as resolving information asymmetry by public disclosure and private communication. Also, code law directly links accounting income to current payouts (to employees, managers, shareholders and governments). Consequently, code law accounting income is less timely, particularly in incorporating economic losses. Regulation, taxation and litigation cause variation among common law countries. The results have implications for security analysts, standard-setters, regulators, and corporate governance.

We show that, contrary to popular belief, initial public offering (IPO) firms report more conservatively. We attribute this to the higher quality reporting demanded of public firms by financial statement users and consequentially higher monitoring by auditors, boards, analysts, rating agencies, press, and litigants, and to greater regulatory scrutiny [Ball, R., Shivakumar, L., 2005. Earnings quality in UK private firms: comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting and Economics 39, 83–128]. We also question the evidence of Teoh et al. [1998b. Earnings management and the subsequent market performance of initial public offerings. Journal of Finance 53, 1935–1974] supporting the alternative hypothesis that managers opportunistically inflate earnings to influence IPO pricing. We conjecture that upward-biased estimates of “discretionary” accruals occur in a broad genre of studies on earnings management around similar large transactions and events.

UK private and public companies face substantially equivalent regulation on auditing, accounting standards and taxes. We hypothesize that private company financial reporting nevertheless is of lower quality due to different market demand, regulation notwithstanding. A large UK sample supports this hypothesis. Quality is operationalized using Basu's (1997) time-series measure of timely loss recognition and a new accruals-based method. The result is not affected by controls for size, leverage, industry membership and auditor size, or by allowing endogenous listing choice. The result enhances understanding of private companies, which are predominant in the economy. It also provides insight into the economics of accounting standards.

Rendleman, Jones, and Latané (1987) and Bernard and Thomas (1990) hypothesize and report evidence that investors use a ‘naive’ seasonal random walk model, at least in part, for quarterly earnings. We show that the market acts as if it: (1) does not use a simple seasonal random walk model; (2) does exploit serial correlation at lags 1–4 in seasonally-differenced quarterly earnings; (3) does use the correct signs in exploiting serial correlation at each lag; but (4) underestimates the magnitude of serial correlation by approximately 50% on average. We discuss the consistency of alternative hypotheses with our evidence.

Do accruals-based earnings provide better information about future operating cash flows than do operating cash flows themselves, as predicted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board's conceptual framework (FASB, 1978)? While this is a foundational issue in accounting, because it addresses the information added by accrual accounting methods, testing it remains unsettled. We show that when comparing the predictive ability of operating cash flows with that of an equivalent earnings measure calculated on an accrual basis, earnings outperform operating cash flows. The result becomes more pronounced when allowance is made for cross-sectional differences in the relation between firms' earnings and future cash flows. In fact, even “bottom line” earnings then have similar explanatory power as operating cash flows.

The East Asian countries Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand provide rare insight into the interaction between accounting standards and the incentives of managers and auditors. Their standards derive from common law sources (UK, US, and IAS) that are widely viewed as higher quality than code law standards. However, their preparers’ incentives imply low quality. We show their financial reporting quality is not higher than under code law, with quality operationalized as timely recognition of economic income (particularly losses). It is misleading to classify countries by standards, ignoring incentives, as is common in international accounting texts, transparency indexes, and IAS advocacy.