IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jaecon/v76y2023i1s0165410122000969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost in standardization: Effects of financial statement database discrepancies on inference

Author

Listed:
  • Du, Kai
  • Huddart, Steven
  • Jiang, Xin Daniel

Abstract

SEC-mandated, machine-readable structured filings are an alternative source to Compustat for companies' accounting data. Discrepancies between as-filed and Compustat data, potentially a result of Compustat's standardizations, are more pronounced for firms with complex financial reporting. We show that these data discrepancies affect inferences in four research settings: (i) properties of accrual accounting, including accruals-cash flow relationships and abnormal accruals; (ii) real earnings management; (iii) the existence and magnitude of six of 21 accounting-based anomalies examined, including the accruals anomaly; and (iv) disclosure quality assessments based on the hierarchical structure of financial statement items. FactSet data also exhibit significant and often larger discrepancies from as-filed data. Our findings demonstrate the importance of these data discrepancies for the interpretation of empirical tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Du, Kai & Huddart, Steven & Jiang, Xin Daniel, 2023. "Lost in standardization: Effects of financial statement database discrepancies on inference," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:76:y:2023:i:1:s0165410122000969
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410122000969
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101573?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Akbas, Ferhat & Markov, Stanimir & Subasi, Musa & Weisbrod, Eric, 2018. "Determinants and consequences of information processing delay: Evidence from the Thomson Reuters Institutional Brokers’ Estimate System," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(2), pages 366-388.
    2. Gus De Franco & S.P. Kothari & Rodrigo S. Verdi, 2011. "The Benefits of Financial Statement Comparability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(4), pages 895-931, September.
    3. Harrison Hong & Terence Lim & Jeremy C. Stein, 2000. "Bad News Travels Slowly: Size, Analyst Coverage, and the Profitability of Momentum Strategies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 265-295, February.
    4. Robert M. Bushman & Alina Lerman & X. Frank Zhang, 2016. "The Changing Landscape of Accrual Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 41-78, March.
    5. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    6. Davis, James L, 1994. "The Cross-Section of Realized Stock Returns: The Pre-COMPUSTAT Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1579-1593, December.
    7. Khrystyna Bochkay & Stan Markov & Musa Subasi & Eric Weisbrod, 2022. "The Roles of Data Providers and Analysts in the Production, Dissemination, and Pricing of Street Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1695-1740, December.
    8. Ball, Ray & Gerakos, Joseph & Linnainmaa, Juhani T. & Nikolaev, Valeri, 2016. "Accruals, cash flows, and operating profitability in the cross section of stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 28-45.
    9. R. David Mclean & Jeffrey Pontiff, 2016. "Does Academic Research Destroy Stock Return Predictability?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(1), pages 5-32, February.
    10. Roychowdhury, Sugata, 2006. "Earnings management through real activities manipulation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 335-370, December.
    11. Kewei Hou & Chen Xue & Lu Zhang, 2020. "Replicating Anomalies," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(5), pages 2019-2133.
    12. Zachary Kaplan & Xiumin Martin & Yifang Xie, 2021. "Truncating Optimism," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1827-1884, December.
    13. Juhani T Linnainmaa & Michael R Roberts, 2018. "The History of the Cross-Section of Stock Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(7), pages 2606-2649.
    14. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    15. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1997. "Industry costs of equity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 153-193, February.
    16. Dechow, Patricia M., 1994. "Accounting earnings and cash flows as measures of firm performance : The role of accounting accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 3-42, July.
    17. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. "On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    18. Schaub, Nic, 2018. "The Role of Data Providers as Information Intermediaries," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 1805-1838, August.
    19. Jeremiah Green & John R. M. Hand & X. Frank Zhang, 2017. "The Characteristics that Provide Independent Information about Average U.S. Monthly Stock Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(12), pages 4389-4436.
    20. Nelson, Karen K. & Barth, Mary E. & Cram, Donald, 2001. "Accruals and the Prediction of Future Cash Flows," Research Papers 1594r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    21. Huaizhi Chen & Lauren Cohen & Umit G. Gurun, 2021. "Don't Take Their Word for It: The Misclassification of Bond Mutual Funds," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(4), pages 1699-1730, August.
    22. Ou, Jane A. & Penman, Stephen H., 1989. "Financial statement analysis and the prediction of stock returns," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 295-329, November.
    23. Richardson, Scott & Tuna, Irem & Wysocki, Peter, 2010. "Accounting anomalies and fundamental analysis: A review of recent research advances," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 410-454, December.
    24. Nallareddy, Suresh & Sethuraman, Mani & Venkatachalam, Mohan, 2020. "Changes in accrual properties and operating environment: Implications for cash flow predictability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    25. Jeremiah Green & John R. M. Hand & Mark T. Soliman, 2011. "Going, Going, Gone? The Apparent Demise of the Accruals Anomaly," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 797-816, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kai Du & Xin Daniel Jiang, 2020. "Connections between the Market Pricing of Accruals Quality and Accounting‐Based Anomalies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2087-2119, December.
    2. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    3. Cakici, Nusret & Zaremba, Adam & Bianchi, Robert J. & Pham, Nga, 2021. "False discoveries in the anomaly research: New insights from the Stock Exchange of Melbourne (1927–1987)," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Cakici, Nusret & Fieberg, Christian & Metko, Daniel & Zaremba, Adam, 2023. "Machine learning goes global: Cross-sectional return predictability in international stock markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Jacobs, Heiko & Müller, Sebastian, 2020. "Anomalies across the globe: Once public, no longer existent?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 213-230.
    6. Narongdech Thakerngkiat & Hung T. Nguyen & Nhut H. Nguyen & Nuttawat Visaltanachoti, 2021. "Do accounting information and market environment matter for cross‐asset predictability?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4389-4434, September.
    7. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, September.
    8. Doron Avramov & Si Cheng & Lior Metzker, 2023. "Machine Learning vs. Economic Restrictions: Evidence from Stock Return Predictability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2587-2619, May.
    9. Peng-Chia Chiu & Timothy D. Haight, 2020. "Investor learning, earnings signals, and stock returns," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 671-698, February.
    10. Hollstein, Fabian, 2022. "The world of anomalies: Smaller than we think?," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    11. Ball, Ray & Nikolaev, Valeri V., 2022. "On earnings and cash flows as predictors of future cash flows," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1).
    12. Nettayanun, Sampan, 2023. "Asset pricing in bull and bear markets," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. S. P. Kothari & Charles Wasley, 2019. "Commemorating the 50‐Year Anniversary of Ball and Brown (1968): The Evolution of Capital Market Research over the Past 50 Years," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1117-1159, December.
    14. Eero J. Pätäri & Timo H. Leivo & Sheraz Ahmed, 2022. "Can the FSCORE add value to anomaly-based portfolios? A reality check in the German stock market," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 36(3), pages 321-367, September.
    15. Zhi‐an Hu & Zhuo Huang & Dawei Lin & Zhimin Qiu, 2022. "Have existing theories explained the accrual anomaly? An evaluation based on the decomposition method," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3645-3675, September.
    16. Jacobs, Heiko, 2015. "What explains the dynamics of 100 anomalies?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 65-85.
    17. Konan Chan & Mei‐Xuan Li & Chu‐Bin Lin & Yanzhi Wang, 2022. "Organization capital effect in stock returns—The role of R&D," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(7-8), pages 1237-1263, July.
    18. Mamdouh Medhat & Maik Schmeling, 2022. "Short-term Momentum," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 1480-1526.
    19. Carlos J.O. Trejo-Pech & Richard N. Weldon & Michael A. Gunderson, 2016. "Earnings Management through Specific Accruals and Discretionary Expenses: Evidence from U.S. Agribusiness Firms," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 89-118, March.
    20. William Forbes & Egor Kiselev & Len Skerratt, 2023. "The stability and downside risk to contrarian profits: Evidence from the S&P 500," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 733-750, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accrual accounting; Real earnings management; Accounting-based anomalies; Disclosure quality; Data aggregators; XBRL;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:76:y:2023:i:1:s0165410122000969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jae .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.