Knowledge that Transforms

Ittner, Lambert, and Larcker (J. Accounting Economics (2003) this issue) present compelling evidence that new economy firms rely more on stock-based compensation than do old economy firms, based on 1998 and 1999 data from a proprietary sample of companies. I complement the ILL results by analyzing data over a longer time period (1992–2001) and, more importantly, document the effect of the 2000 market crash on stock-based pay in new economy firms. Finally, I offer evidence supporting the conjecture that differences in pay practices between new and old economy firms reflect accounting considerations, perceived costs, and competitive inertia.

Abarbanell and Lehavy provide evidence that analysts’ forecast errors are not normally distributed exhibiting a high occurrence of extreme negative forecast errors (left-tail asymmetry) and a high occurrence of small positive forecast errors (middle asymmetry). This is important for researchers who rely on techniques that are sensitive to the distributional assumptions of analysts’ forecast errors. Many of the conclusions drawn by Abarbanell and Lehavy, however, are based on visual impressions (as opposed to formal empirical tests) or based on methods that are very sensitive to the empirical methods used (e.g., whether the serial correlation of forecast errors is caused by the left-tail asymmetry).

Bushee et al. (J. Accounting Econom. 34 (2003) 149–180) is a timely study in an area—corporate disclosure policy—that is increasingly important to regulators, corporate managers, and academics. The authors report several results that will be of interest to these groups. I describe the corporate disclosure issues that make the authors’ research questions of broader relevance than their specific topic might suggest. I then provide comments on theoretical and empirical aspects of the study. Overall, the study is likely to be useful in helping us understand some of the forces at work as corporate disclosure becomes more rapid, more comprehensive, and more open.

Harris and Kemsley (J. Account. Res. (1999) 275) suggest that shareholder-level dividend taxes on retained earnings are fully impounded into stock prices at the top statutory rate. Harris and Kemsley base their empirical tests on Ohlson (Contemp. Account. Res. (1995) 661) with the addition of dividend taxes. We analyze Harris and Kemsley's extended Ohlson model and evidence. We show that the model, tests, and results in Harris and Kemsley are non-diagnostic regarding dividend tax capitalization.

Our analysis suggests that boards focus on deviation from expected performance, rather than performance alone, in making the CEO turnover decision, especially when there is agreement (less dispersion) among analysts about the firm's earnings forecast or there are a large number of analysts following the firm. In addition, our results suggest that boards are more likely to appoint a CEO that will change firm policies and strategies (i.e., an outsider) when forecasted 5-year EPS growth is low and there is greater uncertainty (more dispersion) among analysts about the firm's long-term forecasts.

We examine if analysts more fully incorporate prior earnings and returns information in their current quarter forecasts as their experience following a firm increases. We measure analyst firm-specific forecasting experience as the number of prior quarters for which the analyst has issued an earnings forecast for the firm. We find that analysts underreact to prior earnings information less as their experience increases, suggesting one reason why analysts become more accurate with experience.

Engel/Hayes/Wang and Farrell/Whidbee provide new evidence on how firms weight alternative performance measures in making CEO retention and replacement decisions. While their results are statistically significant, firm performance continues to explain very little of the variation in CEO turnover. I argue we have probably reached a point of diminishing returns in estimating logit models that focus on the relation between CEO turnover and firm performance measures. We will have to consider other less-explored issues to increase our understanding of CEO turnovers and replacements. Analyzing age-related issues is one example.