This study examines how accounting quality relates to firm-level capital investment efficiency. Our first hypothesis is that higher quality accounting enhances investment efficiency by reducing information asymmetry between managers and outside suppliers of capital. Our second hypothesis is that this effect should be stronger in economies where financing is largely provided through arm's-length transactions compared with countries where creditors supply more capital. Our results are consistent with these hypotheses both across and within countries. They are robust to alternative econometric specifications, different measures of accounting quality and investment-cash flow sensitivity, and numerous control variables.

Prior evidence that higher-quality financial reporting improves capital investment efficiency leaves unaddressed whether it reduces over- or under-investment. This study provides evidence of both in documenting a conditional negative (positive) association between financial reporting quality and investment for firms operating in settings more prone to over-investment (under-investment). Firms with higher financial reporting quality also are found to deviate less from predicted investment levels and show less sensitivity to macro-economic conditions. These results suggest that one mechanism linking reporting quality and investment efficiency is a reduction of frictions such as moral hazard and adverse selection that hamper efficient investment.

Abstract Reviews the book "Corporate Financial Disclosure 1900-1933," by David F. Hawkins.

Abstract. This study distinguishes between incremental and relative information content. Incremental comparisons ask whether one accounting measure provides information content beyond that provided by another, and apply when one measure is viewed as given and an assessment is desired regarding the incremental contribution of another (e.g., a supplemental disclosure). Relative comparisons ask which measure has greater information content, and apply when making mutually exclusive choices among alternatives, or when rankings by information content are desired (e.g., when comparing alternative disclosures). Questions of both incremental and relative information content arise frequently in accounting. However, few previous studies have examined questions of relative information content. Possible explanations include unfamiliarity with the relative versus incremental distinction, and the additional statistical complexity involved in testing for relative information content. First, we examine analytically the relation between incremental and relative information content, demonstrating that they address different research questions and require different tests for statistical significance. Second, we identify accounting research contexts in which questions of relative and incremental information content arise. Third, we propose a new regression‐based test for relative information content. This test applies to both returns and valuation studies, generalizes to any number of predictor variables, and can be used in conjunction with White's (1980) adjustment for heteroskedasticity. Fourth, we illustrate tests for relative and incremental information content in a familiar research setting that compares the information contents of net income, cash flows, and net sales in 40 industries. Résumé. Les auteurs établissent la distinction entre le contenu marginal et relatif en information. Les comparaisons du contenu marginal visent à déterminer si une mesure comptable livre un contenu en information supérieur à celui d'une autre, et elles s'appliquent dans les cas où une mesure est considérée comme étant donnée et où l'on souhaite évaluer la contribution marginale d'une autre mesure (par exemple, la présentation de renseignements complémentaires). Les comparaisons du contenu relatif visent à déterminer quelle mesure livre un contenu en information supérieur , et elles s'appliquent dans les cas où les choix entre différentes possibilités sont mutuellement exclusifs ou lorsqu'il s'agit d'établir des classifications selon le contenu en information (par exemple, dans la comparaison de différentes possibilités en ce qui a trait à la présentation d'information). La question du contenu marginal aussi bien que du contenu relatif en information se pose fréquemment en comptabilité. Dans les études réalisées jusqu'à maintenant, l'on s'est peu intéressé aux questions touchant le contenu relatif en information. Cette lacune pourrait s'expliquer, entre autres, par le caractère inusité de la distinction entre contenu relatif et contenu marginal en information et par la complexité statistique accrue que supposent des tests portant sur le contenu relatif en information. Selon un schéma analytique, les auteurs examinent en premier lieu la relation entre le contenu marginal et le contenu relatif en information, en démontrant que les mesures correspondantes se rapportent à des questions de recherche différentes et qu'elles exigent des tests de signification statistique différents. Ils déterminent en deuxième lieu quels sont les contextes de recherche comptable dans lesquels se posent les questions pertinentes au contenu relatif et marginal en information. Ils proposent, en troisième lieu, un test inédit fondé sur la régression et s'appliquant au contenu relatif en information. Ce test convient à la fois aux études de rendement et aux études d'évaluation, peut être généralisé à n'importe quel nombre de variables prédictives et peut être utilisé en association avec l'ajustement de White (1980) relatif à l'hétéroscédasticité. Ils illustrent, en quatrième lieu, l'application de tests du contenu relatif et marginal en information dans un contexte de recherche familier où le contenu informationnel du bénéfice net, des flux de trésorerie et du chiffre d'affaires net est comparé dans 40 entreprises.

We present evidence that clawback adoptions, by dissuading accruals management, motivate managers to shift capital investment mix from R&D to capex to preserve earnings-based compensation, thereby lowering capital investment efficiency. These effects are more pronounced for firms prone to financial misreporting, which is consistent with board incentives to adopt clawbacks, and with managerial incentives to substitute real for accruals-based earnings management to preserve performance-based compensation. Path analyses lend support to performance-based compensation serving as a channel through which clawback adoptions influence capital investment mix and efficiency. These findings extend and reinterpret prior findings and are timely given the Security and Exchange Commission's newly issued Rule 10D-1 that makes clawback provision adoptions a condition for U.S. exchange listings and explicitly requested “comment on any effect the proposed requirements may have on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.”

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Dan A. Simunic, Gary C. Biddle; The Big Four: The Curious Past and Perilous Future of the Global Accounting Monopoly. The Accounting Review 1 January 2019; 94 (1): 353–356. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10638 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

This study tests assertions that Economic Value Added (EVA®) is more highly associated with stock returns and firm values than accrual earnings, and evaluates which components of EVA, if any, contribute to these associations. Relative information content tests reveal earnings to be more highly associated with returns and firm values than EVA, residual income, or cash flow from operations. Incremental tests suggest that EVA components add only marginally to information content beyond earnings. Considered together, these results do not support claims that EVA dominates earnings in relative information content, and suggest rather that earnings generally outperforms EVA.