Accounting rules for valuing retained interest from securitizations require management to make assumptions concerning discount rates, default rates, and prepayment rates. These assumptions provide management with discretion to determine the “gain on sale” of the receivables. We investigate whether CEO compensation is less sensitive to securitization gains than to other earnings components in the presence of proxies for how independent (outsiders, females, fewer CEO-selected directors) and informed (financial expertise) directors are. Overall, our results do not suggest that better “monitoring” reduces earnings management or CEO pay-sensitivity to reported securitization gains. Our results suggest that CEOs are rewarded for the gains they report and boards do not intervene.

This paper examines the ability of naive investor expectations models to explain the higher returns to contrarian investment strategies. Contrary to Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1994), we find no systematic evidence that stock prices reflect naive extrapolation of past trends in earnings and sales growth. Building on Bauman and Dowen (1988) and La Porta (1995), however, we find that stock prices appear to naively reflect analysts' biased forecasts of future earnings growth. Further, we find that naive reliance on analysts' forecasts of future earnings growth can explain over half of the higher returns to contrarian investment strategies.

This paper provides an empirical assessment of the residual income valuation model proposed in Ohlson (Ohlson, J.A., 1995. Earnings, book values and dividends in security valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 661–687). We point out that existing empirical research relying on Ohlson's model is similar to past research relying explicitly on the dividend-discounting model. We establish that the key original empirical implications of Ohlson's model stem from the information dynamics that link current information to future residual income. Our empirical results generally support Ohlson's information dynamics. However, we find that our empirical implementation of Ohlson's model provides only minor improvements over existing attempts to implement the dividend-discounting model by capitalizing short-term earnings' forecasts in perpetuity.

We investigate the determinants of analysts' target price implied returns and the implication of our findings for investment decision-making. We identify four broad sets of factors that help explain the cross-sectional variation in target price implied returns: future realized stock returns, errors in forecasting fundamentals, errors in forecasting the expected return to risk, and biases relating to analysts' incentives. Our results suggest that all four sets help explain target price implied returns, with errors in forecasting the expected return to empirical risk proxies having the greatest impact. Collectively, these variables explain nearly a quarter of the cross-sectional variation in target price implied returns. We use our model to predict the optimistic bias in target price implied returns and evaluate whether investors correctly ignore the predictable bias. The results suggest that investors make similar valuation errors to analysts and/or do not perfectly back out the predicted bias in target prices.

We investigate analysts' motives for rounding annual EPS forecasts (placing a zero or five in the penny location of the forecast). We first show that an intuitive reason for analysts to engage in rounding is in circumstances where the penny digit of the forecast is of less economic significance. By rounding, analysts reveal that their forecasts are not intended to be precise to the penny. We also show that analyst incentives impact the likelihood of rounding. Specifically, we predict that analysts will exert less effort forecasting earnings for firms that generate less brokerage or investment banking business since such firms create less value for the analysts' employers. As a consequence of this reduced effort and attention, the analyst will be more uncertain about the penny digit of the forecast and so will round. Our results are consistent with this prediction. One implication of our findings is that a rounded forecast is a simple and easily observable proxy for a more noisy measure of the market's expectation of earnings. Consistent with this implication, we show that rounded forecasts bias down earnings response coefficients at earnings announcements.

In this paper we evaluate the role of sell‐side analysts' long‐term earnings growth forecasts in the pricing of common equity offerings. We find that, in general, sell‐side analysts' long‐term growth forecasts are systematically overly optimistic around equity offerings and that analysts employed by the lead managers of the offerings make the most optimistic growth forecasts. In additional, we find a positive relation between the fees paid to the affiliated analysts' employers and the level of the affiliated analysts' growth forecasts. We also document that the post‐offering underperformance is most pronounced for firms with the highest growth forecasts made by affiliated analysts. Finally, we demonstrate that the post‐offering underperformance disappears once we control for the overoptimism in earnings growth expectations. Thus, the evidence presented in this paper is consistent with the “equity issue puzzle” arising from overly optimistic earnings growth expectations held at the time of the offerings.

This study investigates firms subject to accounting enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission for alleged violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. We investigate: (i) the extent to which the alleged earnings manipulations can be explained by extant earnings management hypotheses; (ii) the relation between earnings manipulations and weaknesses in firms' internal governance structures; and (iii) the capital market consequences experienced by firms when the alleged earnings manipulations are made public. We find that an important motivation for earnings manipulation is the desire to attract external financing at low cost. We show that this motivation remains significant after controlling for contracting motives proposed in the academic literature. We also find that firms manipulating earnings are: (i) more likely to have boards of directors dominated by management; (ii) more likely to have a Chief Executive Officer who simultaneously serves as Chairman of the Board; (iii) more likely to have a Chief Executive Officer who is also the firm's founder, (iv) less likely to have an audit committee; and (v) less likely to have an outside blockholder. Finally, we document that firms manipulating earnings experience significant increases in their costs of capital when the manipulations are made public. Résumé. Les auteurs analysent les entreprises assujetties aux mesures d'exécution prises par la Securities and Exchange Commission dans les cas de présomption de transgression des principes comptables généralement reconnus. Ils s'intéressent aux aspects suivants de la question: i) la mesure dans laquelle les présomptions de manipulations des bénéfices peuvent être expliquées par les hypothèses existantes de gestion des bénéfices; ii) la relation entre les manipulations de bénéfices et les faiblesses des structures de régie interne des entreprises; et iii) la réaction du marché financier à l'endroit des entreprises au sujet desquelles les présomptions de manipulation des bénéfices sont rendues publiques. Les auteurs constatent qu'un incitatif majeur à la manipulation des bénéfices est le désir d'obtenir du financement externe à moindre coût. Ils démontrent que cet incitatif demeure important même après le contrôle des motifs contractuels que mettent de l'avant les travaux théoriques. Ils constatent également que les entreprises qui manipulent les bénéfices sont: i) davantage susceptibles d'avoir des conseils d'administration dominés par la direction; ii) davantage susceptibles d'avoir un chef de la direction qui joue simultanément le rôle de président du conseil; iii) davantage susceptibles d'avoir un chef de la direction qui est également le fondateur de l'entreprise; iv) moins susceptibles d'avoir un comité de vérification; et v) moins susceptibles d'avoir un bloc de titres détenus par un actionnaire extérieur. Enfin, les auteurs établissent le fait que le coût du capital, pour les entreprises qui manipulent les bénéfices, enregistre des hausses appréciables lorsque ces manipulations sont rendues publiques.

Researchers have used various measures as indications of “earnings quality” including persistence, accruals, smoothness, timeliness, loss avoidance, investor responsiveness, and external indicators such as restatements and SEC enforcement releases. For each measure, we discuss causes of variation in the measure as well as consequences. We reach no single conclusion on what earnings quality is because “quality” is contingent on the decision context. We also point out that the “quality” of earnings is a function of the firm’s fundamental performance. The contribution of a firm’s fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work.

Patricia M. Dechow, Amy P. Hutton, Richard G. Sloan, Economic Consequences of Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 34, Studies on Recognition, Measurement, and Disclosure Issues in Accounting (1996), pp. 1-20