ABSTRACT Previous research argues that earnings quality, measured as the unsigned abnormal accruals, proxies for information asymmetries that affect cost of capital. We examine this argument directly in two stages. In the first stage, we estimate firms' exposure to an earnings quality factor in the context of a Fama‐French three‐factor model augmented by the return on a factor‐mimicking portfolio that is long in low earnings quality firms and short in high earnings quality firms. In the second stage, we examine whether the earnings quality factor is priced and whether insider trading is more profitable for firms with higher exposure to that factor. Generally speaking, we find evidence consistent with pricing of the earnings quality factor and insiders trading more profitably in firms with higher exposure to that factor.

An interesting question in assessing value relevance of accounting variables is whether measures of value relevance are materially affected by market inefficiencies. We explore this question in two steps: First, we analytically examine the impact of market inefficiencies on the estimation of coefficients in value relevance regressions and derive a procedure that corrects potential biases caused by such inefficiencies. The procedure adjusts contemporaneous stock prices for future risk adjusted price changes, and yields value relevance coefficient estimates that capture both contemporaneous and delayed market reactions. Second, we apply this procedure to three types of studies that have attracted much attention in the accounting literature: 1) the value relevance of earnings and book values; 2) the value relevance of residual income value estimates; and 3) the value relevance of accruals and cash flows. We compare coefficient estimates obtained from conventional value relevance regressions with those from regressions employing our adjustment procedure, and find statistically significant differences in both level and return regression coefficient estimates. The magnitude of differences in coefficient estimates for return regressions is large enough to affect economic inferences. We find that coefficients of lagged price deflated residual income value estimates move significantly closer toward a predicted value of one implying a meaningful reduction of bias. Last, we find that cash flows now have significantly larger coefficient estimates than accruals consistent with their greater persistence.

Unexpected earnings, Unexpected returns, Forecast revisions, ERC

We examine the relation between implied cost of capital and expected returns under an assumption that expected returns are stochastic, a property supported by theory and empirical evidence. We demonstrate that implied cost of capital differs from expected return, on average, by a function encompassing volatilities of, as well as correlation between, expected returns and cash flows, growth in cash flows, and leverage. These results provide alternative explanations for findings from empirical studies employing implied cost of capital on the magnitude of the market risk premium; predictability of future returns; and the relations between cost of capital and a host of firm characteristics, such as growth, leverage, idiosyncratic risk and the firm’s information environment.

ABSTRACT Inflation and foreign exchange raise new issues with respect to accounting representations of equity value. For example, inflation creates an earnings illusion as an artifact of the mismatching of expenses based on allocations of historical costs with current revenues in determining earnings. This mismatching distorts mappings of aggregate earnings and book values into equity value such that value‐relevant information is lost. In this article we consider the consequences of inflation and foreign exchange accounting policies, including those contained in accounting standards, on the value relevance of bottom‐line accounting numbers. Policies are identified that achieve efficient accounting in the sense that aggregate (comprehensive) earnings and book values are sufficient for an accounting representation of equity value. The linear relations that emerge provide predictions on capitalization coefficients that help explain results of empirical inquiries. As well, our analysis provides a theoretical foundation for policies contained in accounting standards that contributes to the resolution of controversies such as that concerning foreign exchange accounting.

We examine the valuation performance of a comprehensive list of value drivers and find that multiples derived from forward earnings explain stock prices remarkably well: pricing errors are within 15 percent of stock prices for about half our sample. In terms of relative performance, the following general rankings are observed consistently each year: forward earnings measures are followed by historical earnings measures, cash flow measures and book value of equity are tied for third, and sales performs the worst. Curiously, performance declines when we consider more complex measures of intrinsic value based on short‐cut residual income models. Contrary to the popular view that different industries have different “best” multiples, these overall rankings are observed consistently for almost all industries examined. Since we require analysts’ earnings and growth forecasts and positive values for all measures, our results may not be representative of the many firm‐years excluded from our sample.

Recently, there has been considerable interest among accounting researchers in the relation between asymmetric information and cost of capital. A number of empirical studies document associations between risk premiums and proxies for asymmetric information such as earnings quality. However, the theoretical foundation for these studies has yet to be fully established. In this study, we consider the effects of private signals that are informative of both systematic factors and idiosyncratic shocks affecting asset payoffs in a competitive, noisy, rational expectations setting. Taking a large economy limit, we show that (1) risk premiums equal products of betas and factor risk premiums, irrespective of information asymmetries; (2) holding total information constant, greater information asymmetry leads to higher factor risk premiums and, thus, higher costs of capital; and (3) controlling for betas, there is no cross-sectional effect of information asymmetries on cost of capital. These results provide guidance in interpreting the findings of existing empirical work and suggest specifications helpful for future research.