We find that nonlinear estimation of profitability decomposition frameworks yields more accurate out-of-sample profitability forecasts than forecasts from both a random walk and linear estimation. The improvements derive from nonlinear estimation and synergies between nonlinear estimation and profitability decomposition frameworks. We analyze three essential financial statement analysis design choices to provide insights for the practice of fundamental analysis and find robust evidence that higher levels of profitability decomposition, focusing on core items, and using up to three years of historical information improve forecast accuracy. We find that our forecasts predict returns and profitability changes before and after controlling for analyst forecasts and common asset pricing factors.

ABSTRACT We analyze the disposition of auditor‐proposed adjustments to financial statements. Our analyses address concerns, expressed by regulators and others, that auditors and their clients fixate on quantitative thresholds and overlook qualitative factors in assessing the materiality of discovered misstatements. Using a large sample of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)‐inspected audits, we examine the frequency with which management records versus waives auditor‐proposed adjustments and whether waiving‐proposed adjustments ha consequences for reporting reliability and the audit process. We find waived adjustments are linked to lower financial reporting quality measured by material misstatements, to incentives to meet/beat earnings targets, and to the audit process, as measured by higher next‐period audit effort and fees and higher next‐period proposed adjustments. These effects on the audit process are consistent with auditors responding to the increased risk associated with waived adjustments. In an exploratory analysis, we find that controlling for the amount of proposed adjustments, auditor resignations are negatively associated with waived adjustments.

ABSTRACT We analyze data made available through the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) to provide descriptive evidence on the properties of auditors’ actual quantitative materiality judgments and the implications of those judgments for financial reporting. Auditors’ quantitative materiality judgments do not appear to result simply from applying conventional rules of thumb (e.g., 5% of pretax income), but instead are associated with size‐related financial statement outcomes (income, revenues, and assets), where the relative importance of the size‐related outcomes varies with client characteristics such as financial performance. Using the distribution of actual materiality amounts reported by auditors to the PCAOB as part of the audit‐inspection process, we construct a materiality‐judgment measure that locates a specific materiality amount within a normal range that is both comparable across varying client characteristics and supported by guidance in audit firm internal policy manuals. We find that looser materiality (an amount closer to the high end of a normal materiality range) is associated with fewer audit hours and lower audit fees, supporting the construct validity of this measure. We also find that looser materiality is associated with lower amounts of proposed audit adjustments and, in extreme cases, with a greater incidence of restatements, highlighting the importance of auditor materiality assessments for financial reporting reliability.

ABSTRACT We provide large‐sample archival evidence on the nature and consequences of errors deemed immaterial to the previously issued financial statements containing the errors (immaterial errors). The incidence of immaterial error corrections has been increasing since about 2004, and these corrections are associated with modestly and discernibly negative share returns that are more negative for income‐decreasing corrections and corrections that involve multiple issues. We find that immaterial errors are a leading indicator of poor reporting reliability as measured by future material and immaterial reporting errors, material weaknesses in internal controls, and SEC comment letters. Our findings suggest that immaterial errors provide researchers and investors with a more frequent and less severe indicator of potential audit or financial reporting issues as compared to more extreme reporting problems such as material errors corrected by restatements.

We investigate whether investors price accruals quality, our proxy for the information risk associated with earnings. Measuring accruals quality (AQ) as the standard deviation of residuals from regressions relating current accruals to cash flows, we find that poorer AQ is associated with larger costs of debt and equity. This result is consistent across several alternative specifications of the AQ metric. We also distinguish between accruals quality driven by economic fundamentals (innate AQ) versus management choices (discretionary AQ). Both components have significant cost of capital effects, but innate AQ effects are significantly larger than discretionary AQ effects.

We investigate three explanations for prior studies' finding that the usefulness of earnings announcements, as measured by their absolute market responses, has increased over time. We confirm this increase for a sample of 426 relatively large, stable firms over 1980–1999. We find no evidence that this over-time increase in the magnitude of the market reaction to our sample firms' earnings announcements is attributable to increases in the absolute amount of unexpected earnings conveyed in the announcements or to increases in the intensity of investors' average reaction to unexpected earnings. To test the third explanation—an over-time expansion in the amount of concurrent (with bottom line earnings) information in earnings announcement press releases—we analyze and code the contents of 2,190 earnings announcement press releases made by 30 of our sample firms over 1980–1999. Concurrent disclosures increased significantly over this period and we find that these concurrent disclosures, especially the inclusion of detailed income statements, explain increases in the absolute market reactions to earnings announcements for our sample firms.

This book presents recent literature on corporate mergers, acquisitions, takeovers, restructuring, and corporate governance as well as discussions of valuation, cost of capital, and strategic financial planning.This book discusses how MA Boeing-McDonnell Douglas; Ciba-Geigy-Sandoz, Disney-Cap Cities-ABC, and Time Warner-Turner.

We study managers’ interventions in financial reporting by examining working capital deficits, measured as current ratios less than 1.0. Current ratios represent important balance sheet liquidity indicators to lenders and creditors, and have an identifiable and naturally occurring reference point at 1.0, analogous to the profit/loss income statement reference point. We find that distributions of reported current ratios of both U.S. and non‐U.S. firms exhibit a discontinuity at 1.0. For U.S. firms, we find that the discontinuity increases with exogenous increases in the cost of credit in the economy, and that determinants of the likelihood to achieve a given current ratio are diagnostic precisely at the 1.0 discontinuity location but not at other nearby locations in the current ratio distribution. U.S. firms that avoid working capital deficits report lower proportions of inventory and higher proportions of accounts receivable in current assets and, when credit is tight, higher proportions of cash, consistent with managers increasing sales volume so as to capitalize profit margins and thereby increase current assets. For non‐U.S. firms, the discontinuity is more pronounced for observations from common law countries, a proxy for jurisdictions where financial reports are more intended to provide decision‐useful information. The evidence suggests that managers intervene to achieve a balance sheet reporting objective that stems from stakeholder use of reference points.

We examine uniform and discretionary regimes for reporting information about firm performance from the perspective of a standard setter, in a setting where the precision of reported information is difficult to verify and the reported information can help coordinate decisions by users of the information. The standard setter's task is to choose a reporting regime to maximize the expected decision value of reported information for all users at all firms. The uniform regime requires all firms to report using the same set of reporting methods regardless of the precision of their information, and the discretionary regime allows firms to freely condition their sets of reporting methods on the precision of their information. We show that when unverifiable information precision varies across firms and users' decisions based on reported information have strong strategic complementarities, a uniform regime can have a beneficial social effect as compared to a discretionary reporting regime. Our analysis generates both normative and positive implications for evaluating the necessity and effectiveness of reporting under standards.