Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Accounting Research (accounting + research)
Selected AbstractsThe North American Industry Classification System and Its Implications for Accounting Research,CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, Issue 4 2003Jayanthi Krishnan Abstract Industry classification is an important component of the methodological infrastructure of accounting research. Researchers have generally used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system for assigning firms to industries. In 1999, the major statistical agencies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States began implementing the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The new scheme changes industry classification by introducing production as the basis for grouping firms, creating 358 new industries, extensively rearranging SIC categories, and establishing uniformity across all NAFTA nations. We examine the implications of the change for accounting research. We first assess NAICS's effectiveness in forming industry groups. Following Guenther and Rosman 1994, we use financial ratio variances to measure intra-industry homogeneity and find that NAICS offers some improvement over the SIC system in defining manufacturing, transportation, and service industries. We also evaluate whether NAICS might have an impact on empirical research by reproducing part of Lang and Lundholm's 1996 study of information-transfer and industry effects. Using SIC delineations, they focus on whether industry conditions or the level of competition is the main source of uncertainty resolved by earnings announcements. Across all levels of aggregation, we find inferences are similar using either SIC or NAICS. How-ever, we also observe that the regression coefficients in Lang and Lundholm's model show smaller intra-industry dispersion for NAICS, relative to SIC, definitions. Overall, the results suggest that NAICS definitions lead to more cohesive industries. Because of this, researchers may encounter some differences in using NAICS-industry definitions, rather than SIC, but these will depend on research design and industry composition of the sample. [source] Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accountingACCOUNTING & FINANCE, Issue 1 2009Kam C. Chan M40; M41 Abstract We use a threshold citation approach to measure the influence of articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting research. The Journal of Accounting Research, the Journal of Accounting and Economics and Accounting Review are the 3 most influential journals in accounting research. The 3 most influential institutions in accounting research are the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan, while the 3 most frequently cited authors in accounting research are Richard G. Sloan, Robert E. Verrecchia and Paul M. Healy. [source] Discussion of Scale Effects in Capital Markets-Based Accounting ResearchJOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING, Issue 3-4 2009Wei Jiang First page of article [source] Scale and the Scale Effect in Market-based Accounting ResearchJOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING, Issue 1-2 2003Peter D. Easton The nature of the data we usually encounter in market-based accounting research is such that the results of the regressions of market capitalization on financial statement variables (referred to ,price-levels' regressions) are driven by a relatively small subset of the very largest firms in the sample. We refer to this overwhelming influence of the largest firms as the ,scale effect'. This effect is more than heteroscedasticity. It arises due to the non-linearity in the relation between market capitalization and the financial statement variables. We present the case that scale is market capitalization rather than a correlated omitted variable. Since scale is market capitalization, we advocate its use as a deflator in a regression estimated using weighted least squares. This regression overcomes the scale effect and the resultant regression residuals are more economically meaningful. Christie's (1987) depiction of scale is the same as ours but he advocates the use of the returns regression specification in order to avoid scale effects. We agree that returns regressions should be used unless the research question calls for a price-levels regression. [source] Capital Markets Regulation: How Can Accounting Research Contribute?AUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW, Issue 4 2009Stephen Taylor In examining the possible contribution that accounting research can play in ensuring effective and efficient regulation of securities markets, two principal opportunities stand out. First, the role of research in informing debate about proposed regulatory intervention (ex ante contribution to regulatory debate). Second, the ability of research to inform analysis as to the effectiveness of previously implemented regulatory changes (ex post contribution to regulatory debate). In the ex ante case, there is a natural tension between the way in which regulatory initiatives often arise quickly and the inevitable passage of time required to fully appreciate the degree to which underlying problems have been correctly characterised and can be framed in a manner suitable for addressing via rigorous analytical and empirical research. It is also impossible to empirically assess the effect of regulatory intervention that has not yet occurred. Finally, if data are simply not available, then research is limited to analytical analysis and prediction. In the ex post case, there is often a natural reluctance to subject regulatory intervention to mandatory analysis, and even when a statutory requirement exists for such analysis and review, the time horizon is often far too short for meaningful analysis. In both the ex ante and ex post cases, what is unavoidable is that regulation can only be legitimately informed by research that is sufficiently rigorous so as to have robust conclusions. Assessing research on these dimensions means that transparency is required so as to allow researchers to engage in meaningful debate about the validity of the conclusions. This inevitably means that research needs to be a partnership between regulatory agencies and academia, and that when research is used to justify regulatory interventions it must be publicly available and subject to robust debate. [source] The North American Industry Classification System and Its Implications for Accounting Research,CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, Issue 4 2003Jayanthi Krishnan Abstract Industry classification is an important component of the methodological infrastructure of accounting research. Researchers have generally used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system for assigning firms to industries. In 1999, the major statistical agencies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States began implementing the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The new scheme changes industry classification by introducing production as the basis for grouping firms, creating 358 new industries, extensively rearranging SIC categories, and establishing uniformity across all NAFTA nations. We examine the implications of the change for accounting research. We first assess NAICS's effectiveness in forming industry groups. Following Guenther and Rosman 1994, we use financial ratio variances to measure intra-industry homogeneity and find that NAICS offers some improvement over the SIC system in defining manufacturing, transportation, and service industries. We also evaluate whether NAICS might have an impact on empirical research by reproducing part of Lang and Lundholm's 1996 study of information-transfer and industry effects. Using SIC delineations, they focus on whether industry conditions or the level of competition is the main source of uncertainty resolved by earnings announcements. Across all levels of aggregation, we find inferences are similar using either SIC or NAICS. How-ever, we also observe that the regression coefficients in Lang and Lundholm's model show smaller intra-industry dispersion for NAICS, relative to SIC, definitions. Overall, the results suggest that NAICS definitions lead to more cohesive industries. Because of this, researchers may encounter some differences in using NAICS-industry definitions, rather than SIC, but these will depend on research design and industry composition of the sample. [source] Threshold citation analysis of influential articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accountingACCOUNTING & FINANCE, Issue 1 2009Kam C. Chan M40; M41 Abstract We use a threshold citation approach to measure the influence of articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting research. The Journal of Accounting Research, the Journal of Accounting and Economics and Accounting Review are the 3 most influential journals in accounting research. The 3 most influential institutions in accounting research are the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan, while the 3 most frequently cited authors in accounting research are Richard G. Sloan, Robert E. Verrecchia and Paul M. Healy. [source] Global ranking of accounting programmes and the elite effect in accounting researchACCOUNTING & FINANCE, Issue 2 2007Kam C. Chan G00; J40; J62 Abstract We provide a global ranking of accounting research and examine the elite degree and elite affiliation effect. Based on 24 accounting journals during the period 1991,2005, the top 5 most productive countries in accounting research are in the following order: the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. We find a significant elite degree effect, indicating that authors who graduated from elite accounting programmes have a disproportionate share of publications in top-notch journals. The same conclusion is also supported by the elite affiliation effect in which leading accounting journals have higher concentration of authors who are affiliated with elite institutions. [source] Valuation-based accounting research: Implications for financial reporting and opportunities for future researchACCOUNTING & FINANCE, Issue 1 2000Mary E. Barth This paper discusses the relation between financial reporting research and practice, particularly standard setters. Many studies addressing financial reporting issues use a valuation approach. The paper describes alternative approaches to valuation research and summarises the findings relating to four major current issues: fair value accounting for financial, tangible, and intangible assets, cash flows versus accruals, recognition versus disclosure, and international harmonisation of accounting standards. The summaries include identifying what standard setters and others would like to learn from research, what we have learned, and what is left to learn. The paper concludes with observations about future financial reporting academic research. [source] Smoothing Mechanisms in Defined Benefit Pension Accounting Standards: A Simulation Study,ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVES, Issue 2 2009Cameron Morrill ABSTRACT The accounting for defined benefit (DB) pension plans is complex and varies significantly across jurisdictions despite recent international convergence efforts. Pension costs are significant, and many worry that unfavorable accounting treatment could lead companies to terminate DB plans, a result that would have important social implications. A key difference in accounting standards relates to whether and how the effects of fluctuations in market and demographic variables on reported pension cost are "smoothed". Critics argue that smoothing mechanisms lead to incomprehensible accounting information and induce managers to make dysfunctional decisions. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these mechanisms may vary. We use simulated data to test the volatility, representational faithfulness, and predictive ability of pension accounting numbers under Canadian, British, and international standards (IFRS). We find that smoothed pension expense is less volatile, more predictive of future expense, and more closely associated with contemporaneous funding than is "unsmoothed" pension expense. The corridor method and market-related value approaches allowed under Canadian GAAP have virtually no smoothing effect incremental to the amortization of actuarial gains and losses. The pension accrual or deferred asset is highly correlated with the pension plan deficit/surplus. Our findings complement existing, primarily archival, pension accounting research and could provide guidance to standard-setters. [source] GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two Alternative Definitions of EarningsJOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, Issue 1 2002Mark T. Bradshaw Managers, security analysts, investors, and the press rely increasingly on modified definitions of GAAP net income, known by such names as "operating" and "pro forma" earnings. We document this phenomenon and discuss competing explanations for the recent rise in the use of such modified earnings numbers and implications for the interpretation of related accounting research. Our results show that over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in the frequency and magnitude of cases where "GAAP" and "Street" earnings differ. Further, there is a very strong bias toward the reporting of a Street earnings number that exceeds the GAAP earnings number. We also show that the market response to the Street earnings number has displaced GAAP earnings as a primary determinant of stock prices. Finally, through an analysis of earnings releases, we show that management has taken a proactive role in defining and emphasizing the Street number when communicating to analysts and investors. [source] Across-sample Incomparability of R2s and Additional Evidence on Value Relevance Changes Over TimeJOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING, Issue 7-8 2007Zhaoyang GuArticle first published online: 9 OCT 200 Abstract:, Given the increasing popularity of across-sample R2 comparisons in accounting research, this paper illustrates why the regression R2s are incomparable across samples and the general nature of this problem. The regression residual dispersion with proper control for scale is proposed as the alternative measure of explanatory power for across-sample comparisons. In market-on-accounting variable regressions, this measure can be conveniently interpreted as the degree of accounting-based pricing errors and be used as a measure of value relevance of accounting information. As an application, the issue of over-time value relevance changes is re-visited. In contrast to prior mixed findings based on the R2 measure, a decline of value relevance since the early 1970s is robustly detected using the alternative measure. [source] Scale and the Scale Effect in Market-based Accounting ResearchJOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING, Issue 1-2 2003Peter D. Easton The nature of the data we usually encounter in market-based accounting research is such that the results of the regressions of market capitalization on financial statement variables (referred to ,price-levels' regressions) are driven by a relatively small subset of the very largest firms in the sample. We refer to this overwhelming influence of the largest firms as the ,scale effect'. This effect is more than heteroscedasticity. It arises due to the non-linearity in the relation between market capitalization and the financial statement variables. We present the case that scale is market capitalization rather than a correlated omitted variable. Since scale is market capitalization, we advocate its use as a deflator in a regression estimated using weighted least squares. This regression overcomes the scale effect and the resultant regression residuals are more economically meaningful. Christie's (1987) depiction of scale is the same as ours but he advocates the use of the returns regression specification in order to avoid scale effects. We agree that returns regressions should be used unless the research question calls for a price-levels regression. [source] Factors Associated with Differences in the Magnitude of Abnormal Returns Around NYSE Versus Nasdaq Firms' Earnings AnnouncementsJOURNAL OF BUSINESS FINANCE & ACCOUNTING, Issue 9-10 2001Youngsoon Susan Cheon This study provides an explanation for the ,exchange effect' puzzle documented in prior accounting research. Grant (1980) finds that the magnitude of earnings announcement week abnormal returns is higher, on average, for firms traded over-the-counter than for NYSE firms. Atiase (1987) shows that this incremental ,exchange effect' persists even after controlling for firm size. We investigate potential explanations for this incremental exchange effect. We first show that even after controlling for differences in firm size, Nasdaq firms have less rich information environments and enjoy greater growth opportunities than NYSE firms. We then investigate whether differential predisclosure information environments and/or growth opportunities can explain the incremental exchange effect. The results indicate that although the absolute magnitude of the earnings announcement-related abnormal returns is inversely related to proxies for the amount of predisclosure information, the incremental exchange effect cannot be explained by differences in the predisclosure information environment. In contrast, after controlling for differences in growth opportunities across NYSE versus Nasdaq firms, and investors' heightened sensitivity to Nasdaq firms' growth opportunities in particular, there is no significant incremental exchange effect (whether or not we control for predisclosure information). These results suggest that the incremental exchange effect puzzle documented in prior research is more likely to reflect growth-related phenomena than differences in the predisclosure information environment. [source] Producing Spaces for Academic Discourse: The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises and Journal Quality RankingsAUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW, Issue 1 2010Deryl Northcott This study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises (NRAEs) and associated journal quality rankings on the development, scope and sustainability of the academic journals in which accounting research is disseminated. The reported exploratory study focused on the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand as three countries in which NRAEs are well developed or imminent. Data were collected via a survey of authors, interviews with journal editors, and feedback from publishers responsible for producing academic accounting journals. The findings suggest that, despite cynicism around the reliability of published journal quality rankings, the entrenchment of NRAE ,rules' and journal quality perceptions has changed authors' submission choices and left lower ranked journals struggling with a diminished quantity and quality of submissions. A clear perception is that NRAEs have done little to improve the overall quality of the accounting literature, but are impeding the diversity, originality and practical relevance of accounting research. Although strategies are suggested for meeting these challenges, they require strategic partnerships with publishers to enhance the profile and distribution of emerging journals, and depend on the willingness of accounting researchers to form supportive communities around journals that facilitate their research interests. The alternative may be a withering of the spaces for academic discourse, a stifling of innovation and a further entrenchment of current perceptions of what counts as ,quality' research. [source] Capital Markets Regulation: How Can Accounting Research Contribute?AUSTRALIAN ACCOUNTING REVIEW, Issue 4 2009Stephen Taylor In examining the possible contribution that accounting research can play in ensuring effective and efficient regulation of securities markets, two principal opportunities stand out. First, the role of research in informing debate about proposed regulatory intervention (ex ante contribution to regulatory debate). Second, the ability of research to inform analysis as to the effectiveness of previously implemented regulatory changes (ex post contribution to regulatory debate). In the ex ante case, there is a natural tension between the way in which regulatory initiatives often arise quickly and the inevitable passage of time required to fully appreciate the degree to which underlying problems have been correctly characterised and can be framed in a manner suitable for addressing via rigorous analytical and empirical research. It is also impossible to empirically assess the effect of regulatory intervention that has not yet occurred. Finally, if data are simply not available, then research is limited to analytical analysis and prediction. In the ex post case, there is often a natural reluctance to subject regulatory intervention to mandatory analysis, and even when a statutory requirement exists for such analysis and review, the time horizon is often far too short for meaningful analysis. In both the ex ante and ex post cases, what is unavoidable is that regulation can only be legitimately informed by research that is sufficiently rigorous so as to have robust conclusions. Assessing research on these dimensions means that transparency is required so as to allow researchers to engage in meaningful debate about the validity of the conclusions. This inevitably means that research needs to be a partnership between regulatory agencies and academia, and that when research is used to justify regulatory interventions it must be publicly available and subject to robust debate. [source] | ||||||||||||||||||||||