Review of Accounting Studies 

About: Review of Accounting Studies is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Corporate finance & Earnings. It has an ISSN identifier of 1380-6653. Over the lifetime, 857 publications have been published receiving 55372 citations.

Earnings Surprises, Growth Expectations, and Stock Returns or Don't Let an Earnings Torpedo Sink Your Portfolio

Abstract: We provide new evidence that the inferior returns to growth stocks relative to value stocks are the result of expectational errors about future earnings performance. Our evidence demonstrates that growth stocks exhibit an asymmetric response to earnings surprises. We show that while growth stocks are at least as likely to announce negative earnings surprises as positive earnings surprises, they exhibit an asymmetrically large negative price response to negative earnings surprises. After controlling for this asymmetric price response, we find no remaining evidence of a return differential between growth and value stocks. We conclude that the inferior return to growth stocks is attributable to overoptimistic expectational errors that are corrected through subsequent negative earnings surprises.

Over-investment of free cash flow

Abstract: This paper examines the extent of firm level over-investment of free cash flow. Using an accounting-based framework to measure over- investment and free cash flow, I find evidence that, consistent with agency cost explanations, over-investment is concentrated in firms with the highest levels of free cash flow. Further tests examine whether firms' governance structures are associated with over-investment of free cash flow. The evidence suggests that certain governance structures, such as the presence of activist shareholders, appear to mitigate over-investment.

Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinantsof Value

Abstract: This paper develops a parsimonious model relating a firm’s price per share to, (i), next year expected earnings per share (or 12 months forward eps), (ii), short-term growth (FY-2 versus FY- l) in eps, (iii), long-term (asymptotic) growth in eps, and, (iv), cost-of-equity capital. The model assumes that the present value of dividends per share (dps) determines price, but it does not restrict how the dps-sequence is expected to evolve. All of these aspects of the model contrast sharply with the standard (Gordon/Williams) text-book approach, which equates the growth rates of expected eps and dps and fixes the growth rate and the payout rate. Though the constant growth model arises as a peculiar special case, the analysis in this paper rests on more general principles, including dividend policy irrelevancy. A second key result inverts the valuation formula to show how one expresses cost-of-capital as a function of the forward eps to price ratio and the two measures of growth in expected eps. This expression generalizes the text-book equation in which cost-of-capital equals the dps-yield plus the growth in expected eps.

Assessing the Probability of Bankruptcy

Abstract: We assess whether two popular accounting-based measures, Altman’s (1968) Z-Score and Ohlson’s (1980) O-Score, effectively summarize publicly-available information about the probability of bankruptcy. We compare the relative information content of these Scores to a market-based measure of the probability of bankruptcy that we develop based on the Black–Scholes–Merton option-pricing model, BSM-Prob. Our tests show that BSM-Prob provides significantly more information than either of the two accounting-based measures. This finding is robust to various modifications of Z-Score and O-Score, including updating the coefficients, making industry adjustments, and decomposing them into their lagged levels and changes. We recommend that researchers use BSM-Prob instead of Z-Score and O-Score in their studies and provide the SAS code to calculate BSM-Prob.

Why Are Earnings Kinky? An Examination of the Earnings Management Explanation

Abstract: Prior research has documented a “kink” in the earnings distribution: too few firms report small losses, too many firms report small profits. We investigate whether boosting of discretionary accruals to report a small profit is a reasonable explanation for this “kink.” Overall, we are unable to confirm that boosting of discretionary accruals is the key driver of the kink. We caution the use of the ratio of small profit firms to small loss firms as a measure of earnings management. We investigate and discuss a number of alternative explanations for the kink.