Prior literature has investigated three forms of earnings management: real earnings management (REM), accruals earnings management (AEM) and classification shifting. Managers make trade‐off decisions among these methods based on the costs, constraints and timing of each strategy. This study investigates whether managers use classification shifting when their ability to use other forms of earnings management is constrained. We find that when REM is constrained by poor financial condition, high levels of institutional ownership and low industry market share, managers are more likely to use classification shifting. Further, we find that when AEM is constrained by low accounting system flexibility and the provision of a cash flow forecast, managers are more likely to use classification shifting. In addition, when we limit our sample to firms that are most likely to have manipulated earnings, we continue to find support for constraints of both REM and AEM leading to higher levels of classification shifting. We also find support for the hypothesis that the timing of each earnings management strategy influences managers’ trade‐off decision. Our results indicate that managers use classification shifting as substitute form of earnings management for both AEM and REM.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a concise career guide for current and potential doctoral students in accounting and, in the process, help them gain a greater awareness of what it means to be an accounting professor. The guide can also be used by accounting faculty in doctoral programs as a starting point in mentoring their doctoral students. We begin with foundational guidance to help doctoral students better understand the “big picture” surrounding the academic accounting environment. We then provide specific research guidance and publishing guidance to help improve the probability of publication success. Actions are suggested that doctoral students and new faculty can take to help jump-start their academic careers. We finish with guidance regarding some important acronyms of special interest to doctoral students in accounting.
SYNOPSIS Prior studies document both an improvement (Gunny 2010) and deterioration (Bhojraj, Hribar, Picconi, and McInnis 2009) in the future operating performance of firms engaging in real earnings management (REM) to meet earnings benchmarks. These results suggest that some firms use REM to signal their favorable prospects, whereas others use REM opportunistically. We hypothesize that firms with less robust information environments, more costly REM, and fewer incentives to meet short-term earnings benchmarks are more likely to engage in REM to signal future performance. Consistent with expectations, we find the positive relation between REM and future profitability is limited to firms that have less robust information environments (measured with stock return volatility, bid/ask spread, and analysts following), more costly REM (measured with market share and financial health), and fewer incentives to meet short-term earnings benchmarks (measured with market-to-book ratio, transient investors, and seasoned equity offering). In supplementary analysis, we note that Bhojraj et al. (2009) restrict their sample to relatively large firms, whereas Gunny's (2010) sample includes both large and small firms. Our analysis indicates that the difference in sample composition explains the differing results. We find that small firms use REM to signal positive future performance, but large firms do not. JEL Classifications: M40; M41.
Both practitioners and academics are increasingly focusing their attention on the riskiness of firms’ tax planning activities. In this study, we examine how external auditors respond to tax risk, measured using the volatility of firms’ annual cash and GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) effective tax rates. Consistent with the notion that tax risk represents a source of engagement risk that is priced by external auditors, we first document a positive association between audit fees and tax risk incremental to fee premiums arising from tax aggressiveness. We also find that knowledge spillover benefits related to the provision of tax nonaudit services moderate this positive association. In supplemental tests, we provide evidence on additional auditor responses to tax risk. In particular, we document that tax risk is positively associated with both audit report lag and the likelihood of the auditor reporting a tax-related material weakness in the client’s internal controls. Our findings add to the growing literature at the intersection of corporate taxation and auditing, and to the literature distinguishing between the level and riskiness of firms’ tax avoidance strategies.
SYNOPSIS Financial analysts and accounting regulators encourage companies to disclose the disaggregation of total capital expenditures (CAPX) into the portion for sustaining current performance (maintenance CAPX [MCAPX]) and the portion for pursuing additional opportunities (growth CAPX [GCAPX]). Using a hand-collected sample of voluntary disclosures, we document that traditional estimates of disaggregated CAPX components, using currently required financial statement disclosures, are inadequate proxies for actual (disclosed) values of MCAPX and GCAPX. Specifically, we find that estimation errors for disaggregated variables are associated with future financial performance (i.e., changes in sales and earnings), suggesting that disaggregated disclosure information is potentially useful in forecasting. We also find that these estimation errors are associated with analyst forecast revisions of sales and earnings per share, consistent with analysts incorporating disaggregated CAPX information into their forecasts. Our results provide evidence that disaggregated CAPX disclosures are superior to currently required aggregate CAPX disclosure for forecasting firms' financial performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.