Linda S. McDaniel

Implications of Proposed Segment Reporting Standards for Financial Analysts? Investment Judgments

This paper reports results from an experiment which provide evidence on how certain provisions of current and revised segment reporting standards affect financial analysts? judgments. Specifically, we examine the effect of two alternative approaches to segment definition: segments defined by grouping similar products (similarity approach) and segments defined by a company?s internal reporting classification (management approach). The first approach is used currently under SFAS No. 14 as the basis for determining externally-reported segments, while the second approach will be used after December 15, 1997, the effective date of the FASB?s new segment reporting standard, SFAS No. 131, Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. Results show that analysts perceived segment reporting to be more reliable when similar products were combined in a segment (SFAS No. 14) than when dissimilar products were combined, and when external segments were the same as those used internally (SFAS No. 131) than when external and internal segments differed. Analysts? confidence in their earnings forecasts and stock valuation judgments was affected by the interaction of the similarity and management approaches. As long as external segments were the same as internal segments, analysts? confidence was not affected by whether products combined in a segment were similar or dissimilar. In contrast, if external and internal segments differed, analysts had greater confidence in their judgments when similar products were combined in a segment than when dissimilar products were combined. These results support the FASB?s position that the management approach will positively affect analysts? perceptions of the reliability of segment data. In addition, our results suggest that, in certain cases, the management approach will enhance analysts? confidence in reported segment data.

The Audit of Fair Values and Other Estimates: The Effects of Underlying Environmental, Task, and Auditor-Specific Factors

The rising prominence of fair values and other estimates (FVOEs) to financial reporting increases their significance to the audit. Based on inspections that report numerous deficiencies, the PCAOB is concerned that auditors are not sufficiently prepared for the challenges faced in evaluating fair value measurements. In this paper, we first analyze the possible sources for observed practice deficiencies by evaluating extant archival and experimental research. To organize our discussion, we rely on an established theoretical research framework that examines auditor judgment through an analysis of three critical and interactive factors of the judgment process — the environment, the task, and the person (Bonner 2008). We believe the framework is particularly useful in understanding judgments related to the audits of FVOEs given these areas have unique environmental and task factors such that addressing auditor characteristics alone to improve audit quality is likely to be insufficient. Second, considering the PCAOB-identified practice areas with direct implications for the audits of FVOEs, we develop and present future research lines of inquiry that take into account the important interactions among the three framework factors. We believe empirical evidence within these lines will help identify potential sources of and remedies for observed audit deficiencies.

Expectation-Formation Guidance in the Auditor's Review of Interim Financial Information

In this paper we report results of an experiment that addresses several issues related to the effectiveness and efficiency of analytical procedures guidance for reviews of interim financial statements. Using materials developed from a public company which issued materially misstated interim financial statements, practicing auditors are asked to perform analytical procedures and to indicate which accounts warrant investigation. Based on professional standards and recent research, auditors receive one of three combinations of expectation-formation instructions and current book values. To mirror audit practice, one group of auditors receives no instruction about expectation formation and is provided current-quarter book values. A second group receives explicit instructions to form expectations along with current book values, and a third group receives the same expectation-formation instructions as the second