外文翻译--对第130号财务会计准则公告全面收益披露的评价

1、外文翻译-对第130号财务会计准那么公告全面收益披露的评价 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 DisclosuresI

2、n this study, we provide evidence 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

3、a dollar-fordollar basis as 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 t

4、ranslation adjustment and 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 experiment

5、al research. However, our 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 p

6、redominant reporting of OCI 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 s

7、tatement presentation of OCI 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

8、 income and its components 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

9、are priced by market 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 c

10、omponents of OCI consist 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 c

11、omponents should be 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 sugge

12、sts two possible reasons 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

13、re-examine the value 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 t

14、he effects of measurement 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

15、 priced, dollar-for-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 co

16、nclusions inprior published 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 unreali

17、zed gains and losses 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

18、at a rate greater than 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 state

19、ment of financial performance 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

20、130, when investors 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 pre

21、dominant location: 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

22、investors pay 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

23、 provide evidence 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

24、inconsistent 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 bot

25、h the Financial 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 th

26、e usefulness 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

27、. Other comprehensive 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 liab

28、ility 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 usin

30、g 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 lesser d

31、egree 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 FAS

32、B 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 members

33、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 finan

34、cial 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 makes

35、 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, opponents

36、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 appropriately

37、 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 less att

38、ractive. 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 derived from

39、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 valuati

40、on 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 notconsis

41、tently 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 avoid mea

42、surement 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 indivi

43、dual 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 performance vers

44、us 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 statement o

45、f 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 conceptually preferred

46、 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 attention to it

47、ems 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 control group

48、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-reactions to accounti

49、ng 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 machine readable form.Source: Dennis Chambers, Thomas JLinsmeier，Catherine Shakespeare and Theodore SougiannisAn Evaluation of SFAS No130 Comprehensive Income DisclosuresJ. Review of Accounting Studies，2007，124：557-593译文：对第130号财务会计准那么公告“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