C
Catherine M. Schrand
Researcher at University of Pennsylvania
Publications - 72
Citations - 10908
Catherine M. Schrand is an academic researcher from University of Pennsylvania. The author has contributed to research in topics: Financial accounting & Cash flow. The author has an hindex of 29, co-authored 71 publications receiving 10017 citations.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Understanding Earnings Quality: A Review of the Proxies, Their Determinants and Their Consequences
TL;DR: This paper pointed out that the "quality" of earnings is a function of the firm's fundamental performance and suggested that the contribution of a firms fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work.
Journal ArticleDOI
Understanding Earnings Quality: A Review of the Proxies, Their Determinants and Their Consequences
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors point out that the quality of earnings is a function of the firm's fundamental performance and suggest that the contribution of a firms fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work.
Journal ArticleDOI
Why Firms Use Currency Derivatives
TL;DR: This paper examined the use of currency derivatives in order to differentiate among existing theories of hedging hehavior and found that firms with greater growth opportunities and tighter financial constraints are more likely to use currency derivatives.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Impact of Cash Flow Volatility on Discretionary Investment and the Costs of Debt and Equity Financing
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that the sensitivity of investment to cash flow volatility is greater for firms with higher costs of capital market access, and that volatility not only increases the likelihood that a firm will need to access capital markets, but also increases the costs of doing so.
Journal ArticleDOI
Executive Overconfidence and the Slippery Slope to Financial Misreporting
TL;DR: In this article, a detailed analysis of 49 firms subject to AAERs suggests that approximately one-quarter of the misstatements meet the legal standards of intent, while the remaining three quarters reflect an optimistic bias that is not necessarily intentional.