This study adds to recent research that assesses the value implications of earnings changes. Stock price changes associated with reported earnings innovations (typically assessed by estimating earnings response coefficients) have been characterized as related to the persistence of earnings, which is defined as the revision in expected future earnings that is implied by a current earnings innovation. Permanent earnings innovations are associated with higher multipliers than transitory ones. This stream of research stems from Kormendi and Lipe (1987) and Easton and Zmijewski (1989). These studies characterize earnings persistence as a stationary, firm-specific phenomenon that describes the evolution of earnings over time. They estimate parameters of earnings persistence from time-series data on earnings and then show that the market's pricing of earnings innovations are related to the persistence measures. Typically, this evaluation involves ex post information, so the approach is not relevant for investors' ex ante determination of pricing multipliers. This article reports three findings on the pricing of annual earnings changes. First, pricing multipliers can be evaluated contemporaneously by other information published in annual financial statements along with earnings. An investor who seeks to assess persistence and the price effect of a reported earnings change can do so by referring to other information in the financial statements. Second, in contrast to previous research, this study shows that the earnings persistence indicated by financial statements is not a fixed attribute, but changes over time and tends to revert to the mean of all firms. Correspondingly, pricing multipliers follow a similar pattern, which requires their periodic updating through financial statement analysis. Third, the multiplier of earnings changes is also related to information published in the previous year's annual report. To the extent that previous accounting reports provide forecasts of earnings that are already incorporated in prices, multipliers are lower.

This paper introduces a new method to measure the unexpected component of dividend announcements. While measures used previously were based on various arbitrary models of dividend expectations, our suggested method compares the reaction of stock and option prices to dividend announcements. Our measure is compared to commonly used model‐based measures, to a Box‐Jenkins time‐series‐based measure, and to a Value‐Line Investor Survey ‐based measure of dividend surprises. The new measure is more highly correlated with the market's reaction to the announcements than are alternative measures of dividend surprises. The new measure is also shown to be insensitive to the extent to which the options used to identify unexpected dividend announcements are in‐ or out‐of‐the‐money.

The conventional view of going-private transactions is that they are designed to enhance the efficiency of the firm. A starkly different view is that these and other control transactions are motivated to effect transfers from other stakeholders in the firm to equity holders. This study exploits data describing pension terminations as a way to test these theories. The authors conclude that the efficiency theory can plausibly explain a substantial number of leveraged-buyout-related terminations, but not enough to undermine the transfer theory. More specific predictions from the efficiency theory are needed to structure more exacting tests.

This paper introduces a new method to measure the unexpected component of dividend announcements. While measures used previously were based on various arbitrary models of dividend expectations, the authors' suggested method compares the reaction of stock and option prices to dividend announcements. Their measure is compared to commonly used model-based measures, to a Box-Jenkins time-series-based measure, and to a Value-Line Investor Survey-based measure of dividend surprises. The new measure is more highly correlated with the market's reaction to the announcements than are alternative measures of dividend surprises. The new measure is also shown to be insensitive to the extent to which the options used to identify unexpected dividend announcements are in- or out-of-the-money.

This paper introduces a new method to measure the unexpected component of dividend announcements. While measures used previously were based on various arbitrary models of dividend expectations, the authors' suggested method compares the reaction of stock and option prices to dividend announcements. Their measure is compared to commonly used model-based measures, to a Box-Jenkins time-series-based measure, and to a Value-Line Investor Survey-based measure of dividend surprises. The new measure is more highly correlated with the market's reaction to the announcements than are alternative measures of dividend surprises. The new measure is also shown to be insensitive to the extent to which the options used to identify unexpected dividend announcements are in- or out-of-the-money.

The conventional view of going‐private transactions is that they are designed to enhance the efficiency of the firm (for example, Jensen (1986) ). A starkly different view is that these and other control transactions are motivated to effect transfers from other stakeholders in the firm to equity holders ( Shleifer and Summers (1988) ). This study exploits data describing pension terminations as a way to test these theories. We conclude that the efficiency theory can plausibly explain a substantial number of LBO‐related terminations, but not enough to undermine the transfer theory. More specific predictions from the efflciency theory are needed to structure more exacting tests.