The properties and characteristics of financial ratios have received considerable attention in recent years with interest primarily focused on determining the predictive ability of financial ratios and related financial data. Principal areas of investigation have included the prediction of corporate bond ratings [13, 20, 23, 34], and the anticipation of financial impairment [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 29, 32, 33, 35]. Related studies have examined the characteristics of merged firms [25, 28], the differencesin financial ratio averages among industries [9, 10], whether firms seek to adjust their financial ratios toward industry averages [15], the relationship between accounting-determined and market-determined risk measures [4, 8, 24], and the influence of financial ratios on analysts' judgments about impending bankruptcy [14, 17]. The general conclusion to emerge from these various research efforts is that a number of financial ratios have predictive and descriptive utility when properly employed.

This article reports results of a field study which tested the descriptive validity of expectancy theory predictions about job performance and satisfaction in a public accounting environment. The correlations between overall job satisfaction and predicted performance were interpreted as indicating that the four expectance models were significant predictors of job satisfaction for the audit staff accountants. Results obtained were sufficiently dissimilar to those obtained in other settings so that the ability of the expectancy models to predict job performance levels in an accounting context was questioned. The study used a between subjects research design for testing expectancy theory predictions of work behavior. This design, in which expectancy valence scores are correlated with concurrent individuals, has rather convenient statistical properties and has been extensively employed. A within-subjects research design will be required in order to properly test the descriptive validity of expectancy.

This paper argues that audit firms achieve competitive advantages through specialization, and that clients purchase audit services from the least cost supplier. Client-auditor realignments thus represent efficient responses to changes in client operations and activities over time. Results obtained from analyzing the financial characteristics and share price performance of corporations that changed auditors between 1973 and 1982 support the view that realignments can generally be attributed to cross-temporal changes in client characteristics and differences in audit firm cost structures.

This paper uses stock market data to investigate the popular claim that investors are misled by the “pro forma” earnings numbers conspicuously featured in the press releases of some U.S. firms. We first document the frequency and magnitude of pro forma earnings in press releases issued during June through August 2000, and describe the 433 firms that engaged in this financial disclosure strategy. Our test period predates public expressions of concern by trade associations and regulators that pro forma earnings may mislead investors and the subsequent issuance of guidelines and rules on the disclosure of pro forma earnings numbers. We use two complementary approaches to determine whether the share prices that investors assign to pro forma firms are systematically higher than the prices assigned to other firms. Our market‐multiples tests for differences in price levels find some evidence suggesting that pro forma firms may be priced higher than firms that do not use the disclosure strategy. This apparent overpricing is not, however, related to the pro forma earnings numbers themselves. Our narrow‐window stock returns tests reveal no evidence of a stock return premium for pro forma firms at the quarterly earnings announcement date. Collectively, the results cast doubt on the notion that investors are, on average, misled by pro forma earnings disclosures despite the widespread concern expressed in the financial press and by regulators.

[This note extends previous research on accounting method choice in the petroleum industry by examining the association between selected attributes of "successful efforts" firms and the decision to change to "full cost" accounting. Firms that changed to full cost are found to exhibit higher levels of financial risk (leverage) and exploration activity (capital expenditures) when compared to firms that retained successful efforts, and these differences are shown to predate full cost adoption by several years. Tests also indicate that the change to full cost is associated with concurrent increases in debt financing and exploration investment.]

This note extends previous research on accounting method choice in the petroleum industry by examining the association between selected attributes of "successful efforts" firms and the decision to change to "full cost" accounting. Firms that changed to full cost are found to exhibit higher levels of financial risk (leverage) and exploration activity (capital expenditures) when compared to firms that retained successful efforts, and these differences are shown to predate full cost adoption by several years. Tests also indicate that the change to full cost is associated with concurrent increases in debt financing and exploration investment.

We investigate whether firms use stock repurchases to meet or beat analysts’ earnings per share (EPS) forecasts. We identify conditions under which repurchases increase EPS and document the frequency of accretive repurchases from 1988 to 2001. We find a disproportionately large number of accretive stock repurchases among firms that would have missed analysts’ forecasts without the repurchase. The repurchase-induced component of earnings surprises appears to be discounted by the market, and this discount is larger when the repurchase seems motivated by EPS management, although using the repurchase to avoid missing analyst forecasts appears to mitigate some of the negative stock price response.

[This paper examines whether accumulated postretirement benefit obligations (APBO) are useful in assessing equity market values. Using an extension of the econometric procedures outlined in Barth (1991), we use observed market capitalization rates on accounting measures to estimate "noise ratios" defined as the ratio of measurement error variance to the total variance of the accounting measure. Differences in estimated noise ratios are then used to make inferences about the relative reliability of APBO and pension liability measures. We find that APBO amounts are marginally significant in explaining cross-sectional differences in equity values, but are capitalized at a much lower rate than pension obligations. Consistent with predicted differences in reliability, the estimated noise ratio for APBO is significantly greater than that for pension obligations. Moreover, we find estimated APBO noise ratios vary predictably across firms as a function of the retiree/active employee ratio and the likelihood of health care benefit reductions.]