ABSTRACT We examine whether prior findings on the market pricing of accruals quality (AQ) can be attributed to other forms of accounting‐based anomalies. Using hedge portfolio analysis and cross‐sectional regressions, we find that the return predictive power of AQ overlaps with several other accounting signals. We also find that, similar to other accounting‐based anomalies, especially the accruals anomaly, the AQ pricing effect (i) is likely due to mispricing instead of risk pricing, (ii) is attenuated in recent years, and (iii) disappears among firms with cash flow forecasts or long‐term growth forecasts. Our findings highlight the importance of controlling for existing return predictive signals when evaluating the market pricing of AQ.

SEC-mandated, machine-readable structured filings are an alternative source to Compustat for companies' accounting data. Discrepancies between as-filed and Compustat data, potentially a result of Compustat's standardizations, are more pronounced for firms with complex financial reporting. We show that these data discrepancies affect inferences in four research settings: (i) properties of accrual accounting, including accruals-cash flow relationships and abnormal accruals; (ii) real earnings management; (iii) the existence and magnitude of six of 21 accounting-based anomalies examined, including the accruals anomaly; and (iv) disclosure quality assessments based on the hierarchical structure of financial statement items. FactSet data also exhibit significant and often larger discrepancies from as-filed data. Our findings demonstrate the importance of these data discrepancies for the interpretation of empirical tests.