To meet the objectives of financial reporting in the IASB's Conceptual Framework, the “balance‐sheet approach” embraced by the Framework is necessary but not sufficient. Critical, but largely overlooked, is the role of uncertainty, which we argue defines the role of accrual accounting as a distinctive source of information for investors when investment outcomes are uncertain. This role is in some sense paradoxical: on the one hand, uncertainty undermines both the balance sheet (because uncertain assets are unrecognized) and the income statement (because mismatching is unavoidable). However, these inevitable accounting effects can be exploited to provide information about uncertainty, though not by a balance‐sheet approach alone. Rather, balance sheet recognition and measurement criteria are established by consideration of the impact of uncertainty on matching and mismatching in the income statement. This combination of balance‐sheet and income‐statement approaches enhances the communication of information to investors under conditions of uncertainty, thereby giving greater clarity and purpose in satisfying the objective of the Framework to provide information about “the amount, timing, and uncertainty of future cash flows.”

We provide the first evidence after Regulation G on firms’ non-GAAP EPS denominator choices and whether they are informative or opportunistic. From 2013 to 2019, 17 percent of annual non-GAAP EPS numbers use denominators different from that of GAAP diluted EPS, which makes denominator adjustments among the most prevalent individual types of non-GAAP adjustments. For firms reporting GAAP and non-GAAP profits or GAAP losses and non-GAAP profits, we provide evidence consistent with denominator adjustments increasing non-GAAP EPS informativeness. Our evidence also suggests that opportunism in denominator choices is concentrated in firms reporting GAAP losses and non-GAAP profits and failing to adjust the denominator. Such nonadjustment is inconsistent with SEC requirements to report non-GAAP EPS “on a diluted basis” because the EPS denominator for a GAAP loss excludes dilutive claims. Although the SEC largely overlooks such firms, they are more likely, on average, to report non-GAAP EPS that analysts consider inflated.

This research evaluates whether reporting incentives and consequences change under the new lease accounting standard. Under prior guidance (SFAS 13), we predict and find firms with high financing cost sensitivities to leverage have greater incentive to finance investments with operating leases. Under the new lease accounting standard (ASU 2016-02), we predict and find this leverage incentive remains but is reduced, consistent with the FASB’s objective to limit opportunities to structure lease contracts for balance sheet purposes. Under ASU 2016-02, we also predict and find that the leverage incentive encourages firms to reduce operating lease liabilities by decreasing the duration of minimum lease payments. Lastly, we predict and find that firms use fewer operating leases under both SFAS 13 and ASU 2016-02 when managers’ income objectives exclude depreciation and/or interest expense. These findings suggest reporting incentives remain post ASU 2016-02 that encourage firms to structure leases to achieve accounting outcomes. Data Availability: This study uses licensed data from a variety of sources (see Appendix A for a detailed list of providers).

We hypothesize that firms' 10-K market risk disclosures, recently mandated by SEC Financial Reporting Release No. 48 (FRR No. 48), reduce investors' uncertainty and diversity of opinion about the implications, for firm value, of changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and commodity prices. We argue that this reduced uncertainty and diversity of opinion should dampen trading volume sensitivity to changes in these underlying market rates or prices. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that after firms disclose FRR No. 48-mandated information about their exposures to interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, and energy prices, trading volume sensitivity to changes in these underlying market rates and prices declines, even after controlling for other factors associated with trading volume. The observed declines in trading volume sensitivity are consistent with FRR No. 48 market risk disclosures providing useful information to investors.