Knowledge that Transforms

To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
140 results ✕ Clear filters

Accounting for Futures Contracts and the Effect on Earnings Variability.

The Accounting Review 1990 65(4), 891-910
Abstract Examines commercial banks' and brokerage firms' claim that existing accounting rules for futures contracts increase earnings variability in the United States. Background on the SFAS No. 80 requiring banks to recognize market changes in futures contracts that qualify as micro and macro hedges; Hedging interest rate exposures; Accounting for futures contracts by commercial banks.

A Comment on "The Effects of the Thor Power Tool Decision on the LIFO/FIFO Choice"

The Accounting Review 1990 65(4), 960-964
Abstract Comments on the article `The Effect of the Thor Power Tool Decision on the LIFO/FIFO Choice,' by R.M. Halperin and W.N. Lanen published in the April 1987 issue of `The Accounting Review.' Change in the tax law resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in the Thor Power Tool Co. v. Comm; Fisher's Exact Test; Dependency on Standard Industry Classification code 3714.

Accounting Disclosures and the Market's Valuation of Oil and Gas Properties: Evaluation of Market Efficiency and Functional Fixation.

The Accounting Review 1990 65(4), 764-780
Abstract Provides evidence of the value-relevance of book values of oil and gas properties. Zero-investment trading rules; Role of the functional fixation on book values on the initial trading strategy; Book-value-induced cross-sectional variation in the inferred market values; Pricing anomaly.

An Investigation of the Influence of a Nonstatistical Decision Aid on Auditor Sample Size Decisions.

The Accounting Review 1990 65(1), 209-226
Abstract A between-subjects experiment was used to examine the effects of a decision aid in the AICPA's Audit Sampling Audit Guide on the magnitude and variability of auditor sample size judgments. Audit seniors were given background case information for a hypothetical audit task and were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: (1) an intuitive judgment group, (2) a decision aid group who calculated sample sizes using the AICPA Guide formula, or (3) a group who provided only the formula parameters from which the researchers later computed implied sample sizes. It was hypothesized that the sample sizes of group 2 would be larger than those of group 1 (due to insensitivity to power considerations), and that the implied sample sizes for group 3 would exceed those of group 2 (due to a tendency for auditors to ‘work backwards’ toward an intuitive sample size). Both of these hypotheses were supported by the data. However, a test for differences in variability indicated that the decision aid led to a greater degree of inconsistency in sample size judgments. Results were consistent over two levels of internal control.