Prior research reveals that the accrual component of profitability is less persistent than the cash flow component, and that investors fail to fully appreciate their differing implications for future profitability (Sloan 1996). However, accruals are a component of growth in net operating assets as well as a component of profitability. Just as we can disaggregate profitability into accruals and cash flows from operations, we can disaggregate growth in net operating assets into accruals and growth in long-term net operating assets. We find that, after controlling for current profitability, both components of growth in net operating assets—accruals and growth in long-term net operating assets—have equivalent negative associations with one-year-ahead return on assets. This result is consistent with conservative accounting and diminishing marginal returns on investments. We also find that, after controlling for current profitability, the market appears to equivalently overvalue accruals and growth in long-term net operating assets relative to their association with one-year-ahead ROA. Our evidence suggests that the accrual anomaly documented in Sloan (1996) is a special case of what could be viewed as a more general growth anomaly.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Prior research documents mean reversion in firm profitability and growth under the implicit assumption that profitability and growth of all firms revert to a common benchmark at the same rate. However, a large body of academic research suggests that there are systematic interindustry differences (e.g., industry barriers to entry) that differentially affect firm performance based on industry membership. We evaluate the relative forecast accuracy of mean reverting models at the industry and economywide levels and find that industryspecific models are generally more accurate in predicting firm growth but not profitability. * Georgetown University; †University of Miami; ‡Indiana University. We appreciate the comments of seminar participants at the McDonough School

SUMMARY A primary goal of both financial reporting research and audit research is to understand the determinants of quality, and researchers in both areas have identified a wide set of variables that enhance or impair quality. In this paper, we define financial reporting quality and audit quality and use a person/task/environment framework to summarize prior findings on the determinants of each. We use this framework to discuss the links between the financial reporting and audit academic literatures and highlight the recursive relation between financial reporting quality and audit quality. Our discussion provides insights and suggestions on how financial reporting and audit researchers can learn from each other to improve our collective understanding of financial reporting and audit quality. Using this framework, we also identify opportunities for future research.

No abstract

SYNOPSIS: The dramatic increase in the number of restatements filed over the past years has been attributed to numerous causes, including the complexity of the accounting standards, internal control reviews, changes in materiality thresholds, the overly conservative nature of auditors, earnings management, increased transaction complexity, and the second-guessing of management judgments by a variety of interested parties. However, empirical evidence on the underlying causes of restatements has been lacking. This study provides such evidence by directly addressing these questions: (1) To what causes do companies attribute restatements? (2) To what characteristics of the accounting standards do companies attribute restatements? Relying on the restating companies’ disclosures about restatements, we find that companies most often attribute restatements to basic internal company errors unrelated to any specific characteristic of the accounting standards. We also find that, for those restatements attributed to some characteristic of the accounting standards, the primary contributing factor is the lack of clarity in applying the standards and/or the proliferation of the literature because the original standard lacked clarity. These findings should interest standard setters and regulators addressing the proliferation of restatements and academics using restatements as proxies for constructs of interest in research.