對(duì)第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告“全面收益”披露的評(píng)價(jià)

1、本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）外 文 翻 譯 外文題目 An Evaluation of SFAS No. 130 Comprehensive Income Disclosures 外文出處 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譯文：對(duì)第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告“全面收益”披露的評(píng)價(jià)在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們提供不同于大多數(shù)在先前研究中所得證據(jù)的關(guān)于其他綜合收益價(jià)格的一些證據(jù)。在此之前的檔案

51、研究得出結(jié)論，其他全面收益已經(jīng)在很大程度上不是由投資者定價(jià)。相反，我們提供的證據(jù)是在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告之后的關(guān)于其他綜合收益是以美元為基礎(chǔ)，正如被經(jīng)濟(jì)理論暫時(shí)性收入項(xiàng)目所預(yù)測(cè)的一樣。我們將這項(xiàng)發(fā)現(xiàn)歸功于我們對(duì)第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告之后報(bào)告的關(guān)于其他綜合收益措施的使用而不是對(duì)第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告之前其他綜合收益措施的估計(jì)。此外，我們的文件包括其他綜合收益的兩個(gè)組件，外幣匯兌調(diào)整和未實(shí)現(xiàn)收益/損失的可供出售證券，都是由投資者定價(jià)。在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告后的期間，我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)在任何一家公司報(bào)告其他綜合收益的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表類型和它的組件影響了定價(jià)，符合之前實(shí)驗(yàn)研究的結(jié)論。然而，我們的證

52、據(jù)表明投資者更關(guān)注于在權(quán)益變動(dòng)表中的其他綜合收益信息，而不是在金融業(yè)績(jī)報(bào)表中。這可能歸因于投資者對(duì)其他綜合收益報(bào)告和其組件在權(quán)益變動(dòng)表中的優(yōu)越性變得越來越熟悉。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)可能同時(shí)與財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)和國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)有關(guān)，他們聯(lián)合起來共同承擔(dān)著一項(xiàng)解決財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告中其他綜合收益項(xiàng)目的介紹的工程。在1997年6月，財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)發(fā)布了第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則“報(bào)告全面收益”。財(cái)年開始生效后的1997年12月15日，這項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求綜合收益和其組成部分將在這個(gè)期間在他們已經(jīng)確認(rèn)的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中公告。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們研究?jī)蓚€(gè)有關(guān)第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告的問題。首先，我們調(diào)查是否在何種程度上，其他綜合收益和

53、其組件是由市場(chǎng)參與者定價(jià)的。其次，我們調(diào)查綜合收益在財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中的披露是否影響到了其他綜合收益和其組件的定價(jià)。投資者對(duì)其他綜合收益定價(jià)的程度取決于它所包含的盈利性質(zhì)?？偟膩碚f，其他綜合收益的組件包括了從某些公司活動(dòng)中未實(shí)現(xiàn)的收益和損失。這些收益和損失一般產(chǎn)生于隨機(jī)游走過程，應(yīng)該在期望中為零。因此，其他綜合收益和其組件應(yīng)該是過渡性質(zhì)的。奧爾森（1999年）表明，暫時(shí)性盈余部分要重視以美元為基礎(chǔ)。令人驚訝的是，先前的關(guān)于其他綜合收益價(jià)格的檔案研究還未發(fā)現(xiàn)一致的價(jià)格相關(guān)性的實(shí)證支持。所有這些研究使用的是之前一段時(shí)間全面收益報(bào)告執(zhí)行情況的數(shù)據(jù)。這表明兩個(gè)由于缺乏一致的其他綜合收益定價(jià)的可能原因。首先，這

54、些研究使用的其他綜合收益的估計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)可能會(huì)遭受重大的測(cè)量誤差。其次，即使沒有測(cè)量誤差，這些其他綜合收益數(shù)據(jù)也不會(huì)在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則之前明確報(bào)告。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們用實(shí)際公告中的其他綜合收益數(shù)據(jù)再次檢查了其他綜合收益項(xiàng)目的價(jià)值相關(guān)性。我們把公告后階段用來定價(jià)的數(shù)據(jù)與同時(shí)在公告前和公告后階段估計(jì)的數(shù)據(jù)相比較。這項(xiàng)研究設(shè)計(jì)允許我們?cè)诘?30號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告后的期間測(cè)量其他綜合收益定價(jià)的同時(shí)，隔離測(cè)量誤差的影響和潛在的提高其他綜合收益披露的透明性的影響。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告前或后期間當(dāng)估計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)被使用時(shí)，其他綜合收益不是價(jià)值有關(guān)的。然而，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告后期間作

55、為報(bào)告的數(shù)據(jù)是積極地被定價(jià)的，以美元為基礎(chǔ)。這個(gè)結(jié)果是與在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告后期間其他綜合收益披露透明性的提高有關(guān)的。這些結(jié)果也是與使用估計(jì)的其他綜合收益數(shù)據(jù)導(dǎo)致的測(cè)量誤差被引入回歸有關(guān)的。這表明在先前研究中的結(jié)論可能已經(jīng)成為研究設(shè)計(jì)的神器。我們也檢查關(guān)于單個(gè)其他綜合收益組件當(dāng)作為報(bào)告數(shù)據(jù)而不是估計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)時(shí)的推論是否會(huì)變化。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)外幣換算調(diào)整和未實(shí)現(xiàn)收益和損失的可供出售證券被積極地定價(jià)是與最有經(jīng)濟(jì)意義的其他綜合收益組件一致的。然而，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，雖然外幣換算調(diào)整的價(jià)值以美元為基礎(chǔ)，但有價(jià)證券調(diào)整的速度比以美元為基礎(chǔ)更值得。本文的第二個(gè)目標(biāo)是檢查財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表是否在其他綜合收益和其組件的報(bào)告中影響

56、定價(jià)。在此之前的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，收入和全面的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)報(bào)表的組成部分（相比，顯示在權(quán)益變動(dòng)表）影響財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表使用者（赫斯特和霍普金斯，預(yù)計(jì)1998年價(jià)格決策顯示;梅恩斯麥克丹尼爾，2000）。我們調(diào)查這些發(fā)現(xiàn)在后財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則130下是否在自然而然產(chǎn)生現(xiàn)實(shí)世界的市場(chǎng)，當(dāng)投資者已經(jīng)對(duì)其他綜合收益披露持有實(shí)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而且其中的大部分是提供了權(quán)益變動(dòng)表。我們的證據(jù)支持的結(jié)論是其他綜合收益的位置事項(xiàng)。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)證據(jù)是與投資者對(duì)其他綜合收益的定價(jià)一致的，當(dāng)它被披露在最優(yōu)越的位置上權(quán)益變動(dòng)表。除此以外，當(dāng)在財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)報(bào)表報(bào)告時(shí)，我們只找到了所期望的其他綜合收益定價(jià)的有限證據(jù)和其組件。這些在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告后的

57、期間的結(jié)果是與赫斯特和霍普金斯（1998年）的投資者更多地關(guān)注于在所期望的位置上被報(bào)告的項(xiàng)目的結(jié)論是一致的。總體上，我們的結(jié)果提供的區(qū)別兩個(gè)重要推論的證據(jù)一般是來源于先前的關(guān)于其他綜合收益和其組件在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公告之前階段的研究（檔案和實(shí)驗(yàn)）。首先，我們提供在第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則公布之后階段總體其他綜合收益是價(jià)值相關(guān)的證據(jù)是與經(jīng)濟(jì)理論相一致的。其次，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的證據(jù)表明，其他綜合收益定價(jià)在權(quán)益變動(dòng)表披露，其中大部分公司選擇披露其他綜合收益。這個(gè)結(jié)果與實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果的不一致表明披露在官方報(bào)表中的表現(xiàn)越來越透明，但是與實(shí)驗(yàn)研究的一致性則表明投資者變得對(duì)其他綜合收益報(bào)告的優(yōu)越性位置越來越熟悉。這

58、些發(fā)現(xiàn)可能同時(shí)與財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)和國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則委員會(huì)相關(guān)的，他們目前正承擔(dān)著一項(xiàng)財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表編制的工程。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的目標(biāo)是開發(fā)提交財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表信息的國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來提高那些報(bào)表在評(píng)估商業(yè)企業(yè)業(yè)績(jī)方面的作用。下一節(jié)提供全面收益報(bào)告問題的背景和先前的學(xué)術(shù)研究。第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則將全面收益定義為凈利和其他全面收益的總和。其他綜合收益包括收入、費(fèi)用、排除了凈利的收益和損失，和與四項(xiàng)分類中至少有一項(xiàng)一致：（1）外幣換算調(diào)整；（2）可供出售的有價(jià)證券的調(diào)整；（3）所需的最低養(yǎng)老金責(zé)任調(diào)整；和（4）調(diào)整關(guān)于現(xiàn)金流或外幣對(duì)沖會(huì)計(jì)處理的衍生證券的資格。第130號(hào)財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則也指定了三個(gè)報(bào)告其他綜合收益的選擇：（1）在收益表中同時(shí)包括兩個(gè)組件和凈利與綜合收入的總和；（2）在另一份聲明中全面收益