Accounting procedures have been suggested as a factor affecting the usefulness of reported earnings for the users of financial statements. However, little evidence exists to confirm the ways in which mandatory changes in income determination rules influence the way the market responds to accounting information. This study expands the existing literature by testing the notion that accounting method choice can affect earnings usefulness for firms engaged in research and development (R&D) activities. We test hypotheses concerning (1) changes in earnings usefulness for firms that switched their R&D accounting method as a result of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 2 ( SFAS No. 2 ); and (2) differences in earnings usefulness between similar firms using different R&D accounting methods prior to the rule change. We find that for our sample of R&D firms, there is a statistically significant decline in earnings usefulness for firms forced to switch from capitalizing to expensing R&D outlays, and that the decline appears to persist over time. In addition, the comparison of earnings usefulness between firms using different R&D accounting methods before SFAS No. 2 indicates that capitalizing firms had significantly higher earnings usefulness than expensing firms. Résumé. L'on a dit des méthodes comptables qu'elles avaient une incidence sur l'utilité des bénéfices déclarés pour les utilisateurs des états financiers. Peu de travaux établissent cependant de quelles façons les modifications obligatoires des règles régissant le calcul des bénéfices influent sur la réaction du marché à l'information comptable. Les auteurs enrichissent la documentation existante en testant la notion voulant que le choix de la méthode comptable puisse influer sur l'utilité des bénéfices dans le cas des entreprises qui poursuivent des activités de recherche et développement (R&D). Ils testent des hypothèses qui ont trat 1) à la variation de l'utilité de l'information relative aux bénéfices dans le cas d'entreprises ayant changé de méthode de comptabilisation des frais de R&D par suite de la publication du SFAS n o 2 et 2) aux différences dans l'utilité de l'information relative aux bénéfices entre entreprises similaires recourant à des méthodes de comptabilisation des frais de R&D qui sont différentes, avant la modification des règles. Dans leur échantillon d'entreprises qui se consacrent à des activités de R&D, les auteurs observent un déclin statistiquement significatif dans l'utilité de l'information relative aux bénéfices chez les entreprises obligées de passer de la capitalisation à la passation en charges des frais de R&D et notent que ce déclin semble persister dans le temps. En outre, la comparaison des données observées chez des entreprises appliquant différentes méthodes de comptabilisation des frais de R&D avant la publication du SFAS n o 2 révèle que l'utilité de l'information relative aux bénéfices des entreprises qui capitalisent leurs frais de R&D est beaucoup plus grande que celle de l'information relative aux bénéfices des entreprises qui imputent ces frais à l'exercice.

Our purpose is to investigate the use of geographical segment disclosures. Specifically, we examine whether equity valuations of U.S. multinationals are affected by geographical segment disclosures mandated by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 14: Financial Reporting for Segments of a Business Enterprise (henceforth SFAS 14). Our results suggest that, when unexpected segmental earnings are large, geographical segment disclosures are used. For the most part, however, we find little evidence that these disclosures affect equity values. This research is motivated by the allegation that geographical segment disclosures are essentially useless. SFAS 14 (paragraph 34) allows considerable discretion in defining reportable segments and firms employ coarse definitions, possibly because of an innate fear of disclosure (Wechsler and Wandycz [1990]) or desire to finesse dumping and international transfer-pricing questions (Balakrishnan, Harris, and Sen [1990]). It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of coarse segmental definitions. Caterpillar Industries had reported three geographical segments: U.S., Europe, and Other. In June 1990, the company told analysts that Brazilian operations had entered a deep slump. The stock market reaction to this announcement was minimal. A few days later, however, the company informed analysts that this slump would cause second-quarter profits to be less than half the amount reported for the

Under the assumption that audit quality relates positively to unobservable financial reporting quality, we investigate whether audit quality is associated with the predictability of accounting earnings by focusing on analyst earnings forecast properties. The evidence shows that analysts' earnings forecast accuracy is higher and the forecast dispersion is smaller for firms audited by a Big 5 auditor. We further find that auditor industry specialization is associated with higher forecast accuracy and less forecast dispersion in the non-Big 5 auditor sample but not in the Big 5 auditor sample. Overall, our results suggest that high-quality audit provided by Big 5 auditors and industry specialist non-Big 5 auditors is associated with better forecasting performance by analysts.

This study examines whether client satisfaction can help explain cross‐sectional variation in Big 6 audit fees paid by Fortune 1000 clients. After controlling for other factors related to audit fees (including audit quality attributes), client satisfaction with the audit team is positively associated with fees. It appears that a dimension of client satisfaction unrelated to audit quality attributes is the factor associated with an audit fee premium. This dimension of satisfaction may reflect other aspects of service quality not documented in the literature, or it may simply enable an auditor to earn economic rents through enhanced bargaining power. Client satisfaction with the audit firm does not appear to be priced in this segment of the audit market. The results are consistent with the view that a Big 6 audit is a service that is differentiable in the eyes of client management, and the results highlight the importance of the audit team composition in allowing a Big 6 audit firm to differentiate the audit product. Also, if auditors are earning local rents due to enhanced satisfaction levels, then a perfect competition model may not be appropriate for the audit services market.