对第130号财务会计准则公告“全面收益”披露的评价

1、本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译 外文题目 An Evaluation of SFAS No. 130 Comprehensive Income Disclosures 外文出处 Review of Accounting Studies 外文作者 Dennis Chambers, Thomas JLinsmeier，Catherine Shakespeare and Theodore Sougiannis 原文：An Evaluation of SFAS No. 130 Comprehensive Income DisclosuresIn this study, we provide evi

2、dence on the pricing of other comprehensive income (OCI) that differs from most evidence in prior research. Prior archival research has largely concluded that OCI is not priced by investors. In contrast, we provide evidence in the post-SFAS 130 period that OCI is priced on a dollar-fordollar basis a

3、s is predicted by economic theory for transitory income items. We attribute this finding to our use of post-SFAS 130 as-reported measures of OCI rather than pre-SFAS 130 as-if estimates of OCI measures. Furthermore, we document that two components of OCI, foreign currency translation adjustment and

4、unrealized gains/losses on available-for-sale securities, are priced by investors. In the post-SFAS 130 period, we also find that the type of financial statement in whichfirms report OCI and its components affects pricing, consistent with the conclusions of prior experimental research. However, our

5、evidence suggests that investors pay greater attention to OCI information reported in the statement of changes in equity, rather than in a statement of financial performance. This could be attributed to investors becoming more familiar in the post-SFAS 130 period with the predominant reporting of OC

6、I and its components in the statement of changes in equity. These findings may be relevant to both the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board, which jointly are undertaking a new project that, in part, is addressing financial statement presentation of O

7、CI items.In June 1997, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 130 (SFAS 130), Reporting Comprehensive Income. Effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 1997, this standard requires that comprehensive income and its compone

8、nts be reported in the financial statements in the period in which they are recognized. In this study we examine two research questions related to SFAS 130 reporting. First, we investigate whether, and to what degree, reported other comprehensive income (OCI) and its components are priced by market

9、participants. Second, we investigate whether the financial statement in which comprehensive income disclosures are reported affects the pricing of OCI and its components.The degree to which investors price OCI depends on the nature of the earnings itcontains. By and large, the components of OCI cons

10、ist of unrealized gains and losses from certain firm activities. These gains and losses generally arise from random walk processes and should be zero in expectation. Consequently, OCI and its components should be transitory in nature. Ohlson (1999) shows that transitory earnings components should be

11、 valued dollar-for-dollar.Surprisingly, prior published archival research on the pricing of OCI has not found consistent empirical support for the value relevance of OCI. All these studies use data from the period before implementation of comprehensive income reporting. This suggests two possible re

12、asons for the lack of consistent pricing of OCI. First, these studies use as-if estimates of OCI numbers that may be subject to significant measurement error. Second, even absent measurement error, these OCI numbers were never explicitly reported before SFAS 130.In this study, we re-examine the valu

13、e relevance of OCI items using actual as-reported OCI numbers. We compare the pricing of as-reported numbers in the post-period to the pricing of as-if numbers in both the pre-period and thepost-period. This research design allows us to measure the pricing of OCI while isolating the effects of measu

14、rement error and the effects of potentially improved transparency of OCI disclosures in the post-SFAS 130 period.We find that OCI is not value relevant in the pre- or post-SFAS 130 periods when as-if numbers are used. However, we find that the as-reported OCI numbers arepositively priced, dollar-for

15、-dollar, in the post-SFAS 130 period. This result is consistent with improved transparency of OCI disclosures in the post-SFAS 130 environment. These results also are consistent with measurement error being introduced into regressions using as-if OCI numbers. This suggests that conclusions inprior p

16、ublished research may have been primarily an artifact of the research design.We also examine whether inferences about the pricing of individual OCI components change when using as-reported rather than as-if numbers. We find that foreign currency translation adjustments and unrealized gains and losse

17、s on available-for-sale securities are positively priced consistent with these being the most economically meaningful of OCI components. However, we find that while foreign currency translation adjustments are valued dollar-for-dollar, marketable securities adjustments are valued at a rate greater t

18、han dollar-for-dollar.The second objective of this paper is to examine whether the financial statementin which OCI and its components are reported affects pricing. Prior experimental research has found that the expected display of comprehensive income and its components in a statement of financial p

19、erformance (when compared to display in a statement of changes in equity) affects pricing decisions of financial statements users (Hirst & Hopkins, 1998; Maines & McDaniel, 2000). We investigate whether these findings hold in naturally occurring real-world markets, post-SFAS 130, when invest

20、ors have experience with actual OCI disclosures, the vast majority of which are provided in the statement of changes in equity.Our evidence supports the conclusion that location of OCI matters. We find evidence consistent with investors pricing OCI when it is reported in the most predominant locatio

21、n: the statement of changes in equity. In addition, we find only limited evidence of the expected pricing of OCI and its components when reported in statements of financial performance. These post-SFAS 130 period results are consistent with the Hirst and Hopkins (1998) conclusion that investors pay

22、greatest attention to items reported in the location expected.Overall, our results provide evidence that differs from two key inferences generally made from prior published research (archival and experimental) on the pricing of OCI and its components in the pre-SFAS 130 period. First, we provide evi

23、dence in the post-SFAS 130 period that total OCI is value relevant consistent with economic theory. Second, we find evidence that OCI is priced when it is disclosed in the statement of changes in equity, the statement in which the majority of firms choose to disclose OCI. This result is inconsistent

24、 with experimental research suggesting that disclosure in a statement offinancial performance is more transparent but consistent with experimental research suggesting that investors become more familiar with the predominant reporting location for OCI.These findings may be relevant to both the Financ

25、ial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board, which currently are undertaking a project on financial statement presentation. The goal of this project is to develop an international standard for presenting financial statement information that improves the usefulness

26、 of those statements in assessing the financial performance of business enterprises.The next section provides background on the comprehensive income reporting issues and prior academic research. SFAS 130 defines comprehensive income as the sum of net income and other comprehensive income. Other comp

27、rehensive income (OCI) consists of revenues, expenses, gains and losses that are excluded from net income and are consistent with one of four classifications: (1) foreign currency translation adjustments; (2) available-for-sale marketable securities adjustments; (3) minimum required pension liabilit

28、y adjustments; and (4) adjustments on derivative securities that qualify for cash flow or foreign currency hedge accounting treatment.SFAS 130 also specifies three options for reporting OCI: (1) in an income statement that includes both the components and totals of net income and comprehensive incom

29、e; (2) in a separate statement of comprehensive income that begins with net income, reports each component of other comprehensive income and ends with total comprehensive income; and (3) in the statement of changes in equity. While all three options are acceptable, the FASB encouraged reporting OCI

30、using the first or second option and discouraged reporting in the statement of changes in equity.Before SFAS 130, other comprehensive income and its components were not required to be reported anywhere in the financial statements. A number of its components could be estimated, with a greater or less

31、er degree of accuracy, from reported balance sheet numbers. However, deriving other comprehensive income from those numbers required a relatively sophisticated understanding of accounting and several simplifying assumptions.The reporting of comprehensive income has been a controversial topic for the

32、 FASB even though the concept of comprehensive income is not a new one, having been introduced as part of the conceptual framework in December 1985 (SFAC 6). For example, the FASB received 281 comment letters on the Exposure Draft it issued in June 1996 (par 50, SFAS 130).3 In addition, two board me

33、mbers dissented from the standard. The basis of their dissent was the absence of a requirement to report OCI in a manner that would be equally prominent with the components of net income.Opponents of comprehensive income reporting present a number of arguments against including OCI components in the

34、 financial statements. First, they argue that these items are transitory in nature and thus not representative of core earnings. Therefore, these items should not be relevant in predicting future cash flows, a key valuation variable. Second, they argue these items add noise to reported income, which

35、 makes earnings more difficult to forecast. Third, since OCI components consist largely of unrealized gains and losses, they argue these items are driven by market-wide factors over which managers have no control and therefore are not a good basis for evaluating managerial performance. Overall, oppo

36、nents advocate a focus on current operating income measures rather than on comprehensive income.Proponents of comprehensive income reporting present a number of counter arguments.5 First, they argue that comprehensive income is the only measure that captures all sources of value creation and appropr

37、iately distinguishes between value creation and value distribution. Second, they argue it is a measure that enforces discipline on managers and analysts. Compensation systems based on comprehensive income would require managers to consider all factors that affect value, making earnings management le

38、ss attractive. In the same way, requiring analysts to forecast comprehensive income would encourage consideration of all relevant factors for earnings forecasting. Third, they argue it is the measure most consistent with accounting-based valuation theory (the residual income model can only be derive

39、d from the dividend discount model when income is comprehensive).In this paper, we examine two issues that are prominent in the arguments over comprehensive income reporting. First, do investors value OCI and its components as transitory income? Second, does reporting location have an effect on the

40、valuation usefulness of OCI and its components?In this study we investigate whether reported OCI and its components are priced by market participants. Economic theory suggests that if OCI is transitory, it should be priced dollar-for-dollar. Prior archival research generally has shown that OCI is no

41、tconsistently priced by investors. We find that this conclusion is most likely an artifact of research design. Previous studies use an estimated as-if measure of OCI that is subject to measurement error. In contrast, we use a hand-collected sample of as-reported OCI for S&P 500 index firms to av

42、oid measurement error and provide evidence that investors do price OCI in a way that is consistent with economic theory. We also provide limited evidence that, aside from improved measurement, SFAS 130 requirements improve the transparency of OCI reporting. As an extension, we examine the pricing of

43、 individual as-reported OCI components. We find that unrealized gains and losses on the marketable securities and foreign currency translation adjustments are priced positively.A second objective of this paper is to investigate whether the type of financial statement (statement of financial performa

44、nce versus statement of changes in equity) in which OCI information is presented affects its pricing. Prior experimental research has found that the presumably more transparent display of comprehensive income and its components in a statement of financial performance (when compared to display in a s

45、tatement of changes in equity) affects pricing decisions of financial statements users. We find evidence consistent with investors pricing OCI when it is reported in the predominant location, the statement of shareholders equity, and limited evidence of pricing when it is reported in the conceptuall

46、y preferred statements of financial performance. Post-SFAS 130, investors seem to have adapted to the predominant choice of firms to report comprehensive income in the statement of changes in equity. These results are consistent with Hirst and Hopkins (1998) conclusion that investors pay greatest at

47、tention to items reported in the expected location.Finally, it is important to remember that we cannot evaluate whether our resultsfor the post-SFAS 130 period might not have been the same in the absence of SFAS130. Since all firms had to comply with SFAS 130, we cannot construct a contemporaneous c

48、ontrol group of firms not reporting comprehensive income according to SFAS 130 to compare with our treatment group of firms. In addition,the differential pricing we detect can be due to other reasons such as omitted variables, model specification, market adjustments for prior over- or under-reaction

49、s to accounting information, or noise in the data. An additional caveat is the nonrandom nature of our sample (limited to S&P 500 firms), which can potentially lead to estimation biases. This issue can be addressed most efficiently when post-SFAS 130 data become available for all listed firms in

50、 machine readable form.Source: Dennis Chambers, Thomas JLinsmeier，Catherine Shakespeare and Theodore SougiannisAn Evaluation of SFAS No130 Comprehensive Income DisclosuresJ. Review of Accounting Studies，2007，12（4）：557-593译文：对第130号财务会计准则公告“全面收益”披露的评价在这项研究中，我们提供不同于大多数在先前研究中所得证据的关于其他综合收益价格的一些证据。在此之前的档案

51、研究得出结论，其他全面收益已经在很大程度上不是由投资者定价。相反，我们提供的证据是在第130号财务会计准则公告之后的关于其他综合收益是以美元为基础，正如被经济理论暂时性收入项目所预测的一样。我们将这项发现归功于我们对第130号财务会计准则公告之后报告的关于其他综合收益措施的使用而不是对第130号财务会计准则公告之前其他综合收益措施的估计。此外，我们的文件包括其他综合收益的两个组件，外币汇兑调整和未实现收益/损失的可供出售证券，都是由投资者定价。在第130号财务会计准则公告后的期间，我们也发现在任何一家公司报告其他综合收益的财务报表类型和它的组件影响了定价，符合之前实验研究的结论。然而，我们的证

52、据表明投资者更关注于在权益变动表中的其他综合收益信息，而不是在金融业绩报表中。这可能归因于投资者对其他综合收益报告和其组件在权益变动表中的优越性变得越来越熟悉。这些发现可能同时与财务会计准则委员会和国际会计准则委员会有关，他们联合起来共同承担着一项解决财务报告中其他综合收益项目的介绍的工程。在1997年6月，财务会计准则委员会发布了第130号财务会计准则“报告全面收益”。财年开始生效后的1997年12月15日，这项标准要求综合收益和其组成部分将在这个期间在他们已经确认的财务报表中公告。在这项研究中，我们研究两个有关第130号财务会计准则公告的问题。首先，我们调查是否在何种程度上，其他综合收益和

53、其组件是由市场参与者定价的。其次，我们调查综合收益在财务报表中的披露是否影响到了其他综合收益和其组件的定价。投资者对其他综合收益定价的程度取决于它所包含的盈利性质。总的来说，其他综合收益的组件包括了从某些公司活动中未实现的收益和损失。这些收益和损失一般产生于随机游走过程，应该在期望中为零。因此，其他综合收益和其组件应该是过渡性质的。奥尔森（1999年）表明，暂时性盈余部分要重视以美元为基础。令人惊讶的是，先前的关于其他综合收益价格的档案研究还未发现一致的价格相关性的实证支持。所有这些研究使用的是之前一段时间全面收益报告执行情况的数据。这表明两个由于缺乏一致的其他综合收益定价的可能原因。首先，这

54、些研究使用的其他综合收益的估计数据可能会遭受重大的测量误差。其次，即使没有测量误差，这些其他综合收益数据也不会在第130号财务会计准则之前明确报告。在这项研究中，我们用实际公告中的其他综合收益数据再次检查了其他综合收益项目的价值相关性。我们把公告后阶段用来定价的数据与同时在公告前和公告后阶段估计的数据相比较。这项研究设计允许我们在第130号财务会计准则公告后的期间测量其他综合收益定价的同时，隔离测量误差的影响和潜在的提高其他综合收益披露的透明性的影响。我们发现在第130号财务会计准则公告前或后期间当估计数据被使用时，其他综合收益不是价值有关的。然而，我们发现在第130号财务会计准则公告后期间作

55、为报告的数据是积极地被定价的，以美元为基础。这个结果是与在第130号财务会计准则公告后期间其他综合收益披露透明性的提高有关的。这些结果也是与使用估计的其他综合收益数据导致的测量误差被引入回归有关的。这表明在先前研究中的结论可能已经成为研究设计的神器。我们也检查关于单个其他综合收益组件当作为报告数据而不是估计数据时的推论是否会变化。我们发现外币换算调整和未实现收益和损失的可供出售证券被积极地定价是与最有经济意义的其他综合收益组件一致的。然而，我们发现，虽然外币换算调整的价值以美元为基础，但有价证券调整的速度比以美元为基础更值得。本文的第二个目标是检查财务报表是否在其他综合收益和其组件的报告中影响

56、定价。在此之前的实验研究发现，收入和全面的财务业绩报表的组成部分（相比，显示在权益变动表）影响财务报表使用者（赫斯特和霍普金斯，预计1998年价格决策显示;梅恩斯麦克丹尼尔，2000）。我们调查这些发现在后财务会计准则130下是否在自然而然产生现实世界的市场，当投资者已经对其他综合收益披露持有实际经验，而且其中的大部分是提供了权益变动表。我们的证据支持的结论是其他综合收益的位置事项。我们发现证据是与投资者对其他综合收益的定价一致的，当它被披露在最优越的位置上权益变动表。除此以外，当在财务业绩报表报告时，我们只找到了所期望的其他综合收益定价的有限证据和其组件。这些在第130号财务会计准则公告后的

57、期间的结果是与赫斯特和霍普金斯（1998年）的投资者更多地关注于在所期望的位置上被报告的项目的结论是一致的。总体上，我们的结果提供的区别两个重要推论的证据一般是来源于先前的关于其他综合收益和其组件在第130号财务会计准则公告之前阶段的研究（档案和实验）。首先，我们提供在第130号财务会计准则公布之后阶段总体其他综合收益是价值相关的证据是与经济理论相一致的。其次，我们发现的证据表明，其他综合收益定价在权益变动表披露，其中大部分公司选择披露其他综合收益。这个结果与实验结果的不一致表明披露在官方报表中的表现越来越透明，但是与实验研究的一致性则表明投资者变得对其他综合收益报告的优越性位置越来越熟悉。这

58、些发现可能同时与财务会计准则委员会和国际会计准则委员会相关的，他们目前正承担着一项财务报表编制的工程。这个项目的目标是开发提交财务报表信息的国际标准来提高那些报表在评估商业企业业绩方面的作用。下一节提供全面收益报告问题的背景和先前的学术研究。第130号财务会计准则将全面收益定义为净利和其他全面收益的总和。其他综合收益包括收入、费用、排除了净利的收益和损失，和与四项分类中至少有一项一致：（1）外币换算调整；（2）可供出售的有价证券的调整；（3）所需的最低养老金责任调整；和（4）调整关于现金流或外币对冲会计处理的衍生证券的资格。第130号财务会计准则也指定了三个报告其他综合收益的选择：（1）在收益表中同时包括两个组件和净利与综合收入的总和；（2）在另一份声明中全面收益