Accounting research, Disciplinary structure, Integration, Fragmentation

This paper studies earnings management using 363 closed–end mutual fund firm–years of data. Closed–end fund assets consist of unrestricted and restricted securities, and realized and unrealized income. While unrestricted securities are not subject to earnings management, restricted security values are largely discretionary. Managerial valuation of restricted securities is modeled as contingent on unrestricted returns relative to a performance benchmark. Four unrestricted performance regions are identified. Known multi–period compensation incentives become the basis for hypothesizing earnings management behaviors in the regions in the form of restricted security valuation. Across several benchmarks, the results are consistent with multi–period maximization rather than simpler single–period compensation maximization or income smoothing. Funds with extreme unrestricted performance show relatively larger income–decreasing earnings management, and funds with slightly–below benchmark returns show relatively larger income–increasing earnings management than those slightly above. These results clarify the relationship between complex earnings management behavior and managerial incentives.

Recent studies have begun to apply contemporary capital markets methods to historical, archival accounting data. This paper discusses period‐specific issues relevant to such research. The general categories of issues considered are agency relationships and the capital market environment, trading practices, regulation, and corporate information disclosure. These contextual issues are discussed as they relate to the following business conditions in the United States during the first decade of the 20th century. First, the population characteristics of security holders were different, and a “money trust” comprised of investment bankers often controlled large corporations. This implies that careful thought needs to be given to assumptions about the role of publicly available information and “retail” investors in securities trading. Second, trading practices were quite different: stock price manipulation was tolerated, as were “wash” and “matching” securities transactions. These conditions, coupled with corporate disclosure of dubious quality and widespread colored financial press reporting, create difficulties in interpreting security price and trading activity. Third, while financial reporting regulation was minimal during the early 1900s, it is unclear whether government threats of regulation may have been regarded as sufficiently plausible by companies so as to motivate “voluntary” behavior. These facts suggest that contemporary researchers choosing to conduct capital market studies using data from historical time periods must fully consider the context of the period under study in designing their study, selecting data, interpreting results, deriving new theory, and drawing policy implications. Résumé. Dans des études récentes, on a commencé & appliquer les méthodes contemporaines d'analyse des marchés financiers aux données comptables d'archives. Les auteurs traitent des caractéristiques propres à certaines périodes passées, pertinentes à ce genre de recherche. Les catégories générales de caractéristiques qui sont abordées sont les relations mandant‐mandataire et l'environnement des marchés financiers, les pratiques en matière de négociation de titres, la réglementation et la publication d'information par les entreprises. Ces caractéristiques contextuelles sont abordées dans leur relation avec les propriétés suivantes de la situation des entreprises dans la première décennie du XX e siècle. Premièrement, les caractéristiques démographiques des détenteurs de titres étaient différentes, à l'époque, et une ≪ fiducie de fonds ≫ composée de preneurs fermes contrôlait souvent de grandes sociétés. Cela suppose qu'il faut analyser avec minutie les hypothèses relatives au rôle de l'information diffusée dans le public et des épargnants, dans les opérations sur titres. Deuxièmement, les pratiques en matière de négociation étaient assez différentes à l'époque: la manipulation du cours des actions était tolérée, de même que les opérations fictives ou simultanées sur titres. Ces conditions, conjuguées à la qualité douteuse de l'information publiée par les entreprises et aux rapports subjectifs abondamment publiés par la presse financière, soulèvent des difficultés dans l'interprétation du cours des titres et de l'activité du marché. Troisièmement, compte tenu que la réglementation de l'information financière était réduite au minimum au début du siècle, on ne peut dire avec certitude si les menaces d'intervention gouvernementale peuvent avoir été jugées suffisamment inquiétantes par les entreprises pour les avoir incitées à adopter ≪ volontairement ≫ le comportement souhaité. Ces observations semblent indiquer que les chercheurs contemporains qui choisissent d'étudier un marché financier en s'appuyant sur les données de périodes antérieures doivent pleinement tenir compte du contexte de la période étudiée dans leur plan de recherche, le choix des données, l'interprétation des résultats, la dérivation de nouvelles théories et leurs conclusions relatives aux conséquences de leurs observations en ce qui a trait aux politiques.

This article uses the articles and citations from a set of eight finance journals to explore interjournal citation patterns, the research interests of individual journals, each journal's influence in particular areas, areas of recent interest to finance, and the extent of interdisciplinary borrowing by finance. The authors find the following: two journals comprise the research core of finance research, most journals publish in a variety of research areas but are influential in a smaller number, a higher level of interest in financial markets than in corporate finance or financial institutions, and an overall low level of borrowing from outside disciplines.

This paper provides an analysis of the citation counts of articles published in the leading finance journals. It identifies the determinants of the most prevalent measure of influence for finance journals, the Social Sciences Citation Index impact factors. It finds that impact factors are affected by citations outside the finance field, are not affected by the distribution of published articles across subfields, and are good predictors of the long‐term citation counts of articles. The citation impact factors are reduced for both the Journal of Financial Economics and The Journal of Finance by their publication of other than regular articles.

This article uses the articles and citations from a set of eight finance journals to explore interjournal citation patterns, the research interests of individual journals, each journal's influence in particular areas, areas of recent interest to finance, and the extent of interdisciplinary borrowing by finance. We find the following: two journals comprise the research core of finance research, most journals publish in a variety of research areas but are influential in a smaller number, a higher level of interest in financial markets than in corporate finance or financial institutions, and an overall low level of borrowing from outside disciplines.

This study examines differences in finance research productivity and influence across 661 academic institutions over the five year period from 1989 through 1993. We find that 40 institutions account for over 50% of all articles published by 16 leading journals over the five year period; 66 institutions account for two-thirds of the articles. Influence is more skewed with as few as 20 institutions accounting for 50% of all citations to articles in these journals. The number of publications and publication influence increase with faculty size and academic accreditation. Prestigious business schools are associated with high publication productivity and influence.

This study examines differences in finance research productivity and influence across 661 academic institutions over the five‐year period from 1989 through 1993. We find that 40 institutions account for over 50 percent of all articles published by 16 leading journals over the five‐year period; 66 institutions account for two‐thirds of the articles. Influence is more skewed, with as few as 20 institutions accounting for 50 percent of all citations to articles in these journals. The number of publications and publication influence increase with faculty size and academic accreditation. Prestigious business schools are associated with high publication productivity and influence.