Theodore E. Christensen

Creating a Bigger Bath Using the Deferred Tax Valuation Allowance

The provisions of SFAS No. 109 allow US companies to make an earnings big bath even bigger through the establishment of a deferred tax valuation allowance. At the time a firm recognizes a non-cash charge, it also recognizes a deferred tax asset to represent the future tax benefits of the charge. Recognition of the deferred tax asset partially mitigates the negative earnings impact of the special charge. However, if the firm does not expect to have sufficient future taxable income to utilize the future tax benefits of the charge, SFAS No. 109 requires the firm to establish a deferred tax valuation allowance, effectively eliminating the recognized deferred tax asset. Thus, the establishment of the valuation allowance amplifies the negative earnings impact of the non-cash charge. We use a valuation allowance prediction model to identify firms that create a larger-than-expected valuation allowance; these firms may be creating a large valuation allowance as a reserve to be used to manage earnings in a subsequent period. We find that the vast majority of these larger-than-expected valuation allowances apparently reflect informed management pessimism about the future in that these firms actually do have poorer operating performance in subsequent periods. We do not find any evidence that subsequent reversals of valuation allowances are used to turn a loss into a profit. However, we do find a very small number of firms that appear to have used a valuation allowance reversal to meet or beat the mean analyst forecast. Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors Journal compilation (c) 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Has the Regulation of Pro Forma Reporting in the US Changed Investors’ Perceptions of Pro Forma Earnings Disclosures?: REGULATION OF PRO FORMA REPORTING IN THE US

We explore whether investors’ perceptions of pro forma earnings numbers have changed following the regulation of pro forma reporting imposed by the Sarbanes�?Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). First, we find that investors appear to pay more attention to pro forma earnings disclosures in the post�?SOX period, consistent with the notion that they perceive that regulation generally renders these disclosures more credible. Second, the results indicate that investors discount aggressive pro forma earnings reports in both periods. However, they appear to discount at least some potentially misleading pro forma earnings disclosures more in the post�?SOX period. Finally, our results imply that the regulation of pro forma reporting has increased the average quality of pro forma earnings disclosures by filtering out those that are most likely to be misleading. These results are consistent with the conclusions that (1) the quality of pro forma reporting has improved following SOX, and (2) investors’ perceptions of pro forma earnings metrics have changed in the post�?SOX regulatory environment.

Has the Regulation of Non-GAAP Disclosures Influenced Managers’ Use of Aggressive Earnings Exclusions?

The frequency of non-GAAP (or “pro forma”) reporting has continued to increase in the United States over the last decade, despite preliminary evidence that regulatory intervention led to a decline in non-GAAP disclosures. In particular, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and Regulation G (2003) impose strict requirements related to the reporting of non-GAAP numbers. More recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has renewed its emphasis on non-GAAP reporting and declared it a “fraud risk factor.” Given the SEC’s renewed emphasis on non-GAAP disclosures, we explore the extent to which regulation has curbed potentially misleading disclosures by investigating two measures of aggressive non-GAAP reporting. Consistent with the intent of Congress and the SEC, we find some evidence that managers report adjusted earnings metrics more cautiously in the post-SOX regulatory environment. Specifically, the results suggest that firms reporting non-GAAP earnings in the post-SOX period are less likely to (a) exclude recurring items incremental to those excluded by analysts and (b) use non-GAAP exclusions to meet strategic earnings targets on a non-GAAP basis that they miss based on Institutional Brokers’ Estimate System (I/B/E/S) actual earnings. However, we also find that some firms exclude specific recurring items aggressively. Overall, the results suggest that while regulation has generally reduced aggressive non-GAAP reporting, some firms continue to disclose non-GAAP earnings numbers that could be misleading in the post-SOX regulatory environment.

The Effects of Executive Compensation Contracts and Auditor Effort on Pro Forma Reporting Decisions

We investigate two potential deterrents of aggressive pro forma reporting. First, the design of compensation contracts can encourage managers to adopt either a short- or a long-term focus. While it is difficult to observe whether compensation contracts are tied directly to pro forma earnings numbers, we posit that managers with a short-term horizon are more likely to make aggressive pro forma exclusions than managers with a long-term focus. Second, auditor effort can discourage potentially misleading pro forma earnings adjustments. Consistent with our predictions, we find that when compensation contracts include a long-term performance plan, managers are less likely to make potentially misleading pro forma earnings adjustments. Similarly, we find some evidence of a negative association between auditor effort (as proxied by higher-than-normal audit fees) and potentially misleading earnings adjustments. Taken together, this evidence is consistent with the notion that the design of compensation contracts and auditor effort can significantly influence managers’ pro forma reporting decisions. The results also suggest that investors discount earnings information when opportunism is likely to motivate managers’ earnings adjustments. Moreover, when managers make aggressive earnings exclusions in the presence of safeguards that limit opportunistic behavior, investors appear to react even more negatively.

The Use of Non-GAAP Performance Measures in Executive Compensation Contracting and Financial Reporting

We examine the relation between compensation incentives and non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Specifically, we focus on the extent to which bonus plan incentives and long-term performance plan incentives are associated with the aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting, controlling for CEO sensitivity to stock price. Using a large hand-collected sample of non-GAAP earnings disclosures, we find that long-term plan incentives are negatively associated with the likelihood and magnitude of aggressive non-GAAP reporting, suggesting that they act as a deterrent to potentially opportunistic behavior. For a sub-sample of firms for which compensation contracts in proxy filings explicitly state that managers will be evaluated based on non-GAAP metrics, we find less opportunistic non-GAAP reporting, consistent with boards defining adjusted performance metrics in compensation contracts in order to limit CEOs’ ability to define their own non-GAAP numbers. However, when boards of directors have discretion to use non-GAAP metrics when evaluating managers, we find more opportunistic non-GAAP earnings reporting, consistent with managers using the flexibility in contracts to influence their performance evaluations.

CEO Compensation Incentives and Non-GAAP Earnings Disclosures

We examine the relation between compensation incentives and non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Specifically, we focus on the extent to which bonus plan incentives and long-term performance plan incentives are associated with the aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting, controlling for CEO sensitivity to stock price. Using a large hand-collected sample of non-GAAP earnings disclosures, we find that long-term plan incentives are negatively associated with the likelihood and magnitude of aggressive non-GAAP reporting, suggesting that they act as a deterrent to potentially opportunistic behavior. For a sub-sample of firms for which compensation contracts in proxy filings explicitly state that managers will be evaluated based on non-GAAP metrics, we find less opportunistic non-GAAP reporting, consistent with boards defining adjusted performance metrics in compensation contracts in order to limit CEOs’ ability to define their own non-GAAP numbers. However, when boards of directors have discretion to use non-GAAP metrics when evaluating managers, we find more opportunistic non-GAAP earnings reporting, consistent with managers using the flexibility in contracts to influence their performance evaluations.

When Do Firms Initiate Earnings Guidance? The Timing, Consequences, and Characteristics of Firms’ First Earnings Guidance

The decision to provide earnings guidance for the first time is an important disclosure decision that has a significant effect on subsequent earnings guidance decisions. We explore how soon managers initiate earnings guidance after an initial public offering (IPO) and the factors associated with the adoption of this new disclosure policy. Our results suggest that managers in the current environment often initiate public guidance soon after their IPOs. Specifically, we find that more than 31 (59) percent of our sample firms provide earnings guidance within 90 (365) days of going public. We explore factors that are likely related to the supply of and demand for early earnings guidance. We find evidence of a positive association between the timing of earnings guidance initiation and the involvement of influential external parties (analysts, venture capital firms, and private equity firms) and the proportion of industry peers that guide and a negative association between the timing of first guidance and IPO information uncertainty. In addition, we find a positive association between abnormal returns and first guidance forecast news, consistent with investors generally relying on first-time guidance. We also find that firms in short-term focused industries tend to provide shorter-horizon initial guidance. Overall, the results indicate that, while the timing of first guidance varies with firm-specific measures of the costs and benefits of disclosure predicted by theory, the horizon of first guidance depends mostly on industry factors.

Analysts’ and Investors’ Reactions to Consistent Earnings Signals

We investigate (1) whether the trajectory of the current-quarter earnings expectation path (defined by the signs of the forecast revision and the earnings surprise) provides information about future firm performance, and (2) the extent to which analysts and investors react to that information. Our results indicate that analysts underreact more to earnings information revealed by consistent-signal earnings expectation paths than to earnings information communicated by inconsistent-signal expectation paths. We also find that the current earnings expectation path provides incremental explanatory power for future abnormal returns, even after controlling for the sign and magnitude of the earnings surprise. Overall, our evidence is consistent with underreaction stemming from analysts’ and investors’ bias in processing the information in consistent-signal earnings expectation paths.

Comments on the Proposed SEC's 2010-2015 Draft Strategic Plan

SYNOPSIS: The SEC has proposed a strategic plan that sets out its mission, vision, and values, four strategic goals, a set of desired outcomes associated with each strategic goal, and a list of performance measures for assessing the SEC’s effectiveness in attaining its goals. We affirm the need for vigorous enforcement of securities law and offer some research-based insights and performance indicators. We also acknowledge the importance of disclosure, but propose that the SEC needs to develop a disclosure framework and develop better operational indicators of quality of disclosure. It is important to appreciate the benefits of disclosure as well as its limits and potential dysfunctional consequences. We also discuss the need for an independent accounting standard setter and recommend that the SEC take a greater role in enhancing the independence of the FASB.

The Use of Non-GAAP Performance Metrics for Compensation Contracting and Financial Reporting

We examine the relation between compensation incentives and non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Specifically, we focus on the extent to which bonus plan incentives and long-term performance plan incentives are associated with the aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting, controlling for CEO sensitivity to stock price. Using a large hand-collected sample of non-GAAP earnings disclosures, we find that long-term plan incentives are negatively associated with the likelihood and magnitude of aggressive non-GAAP reporting, suggesting that they act as a deterrent to potentially opportunistic behavior. For a sub-sample of firms for which compensation contracts in proxy filings explicitly state that managers will be evaluated based on non-GAAP metrics, we find less opportunistic non-GAAP reporting, consistent with boards defining adjusted performance metrics in compensation contracts in order to limit CEOs’ ability to define their own non-GAAP numbers. However, when boards of directors have discretion to use non-GAAP metrics when evaluating managers, we find more opportunistic non-GAAP earnings reporting, consistent with managers using the flexibility in contracts to influence their performance evaluations.