Increasing goal congruence in project evaluation by introducing a strict market depreciation schedule
The economic accuracy of accrual-based managerial performance measures is most essential for value added investment decisions in decentralised firms. Contemporary EVA-literature often lends support to annuity-based depreciation schedules for accomplishing congruence between capital budgeting criteria, like NPV, and accounting measures, like ROI and RI. This is incongruent with the principal agent literature aiming at designing managerial incentive contracts. We introduce a strict market-based depreciation schedule which is shown to be superior to ordinary straight-line, annuity-based or IRR-based depreciation schedules. It gives the right managerial investment incentives also in the case of growth, inflation or technological development.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stephen Riceman & Steven Cahan & Mohan Lal, 2002. "Do managers perform better under EVA bonus schemes?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 537-572.
- McFarland, Henry, 1990. "Alternative Methods of Depreciation and the Reliability of Accounting Measures of Economic Profits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(3), pages 521-24, August.
- Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R., 2001. "The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2-3), pages 187-243, May.
- G. C. Harcourt, 1965. "The Accountant In A Golden Age," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 66-80.
- Sunil Dutta & Stefan Reichelstein, 2003. "Leading Indicator Variables, Performance Measurement, and Long-Term Versus Short-Term Contracts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 837-866, December.
- Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
- Fisher, Franklin M & McGowan, John J, 1983. "On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monopoly Profits," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 82-97, March.
- Wallace, James S., 1997. "Adopting residual income-based compensation plans: Do you get what you pay for?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 275-300, December.
- Alfred Wagenhofer, 2003. "Accrual-based compensation, depreciation and investment decisions," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 287-309.
- Magee, Robert P., 2001. "Discussion of "Contracting theory and accounting"," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 89-96, December.
- Lambert, Richard A., 2001. "Contracting theory and accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 3-87, December.
- Rogerson, William P, 1997. "Intertemporal Cost Allocation and Managerial Investment Incentives: A Theory Explaining the Use of Economic Value Added as a Performance Measure," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(4), pages 770-95, August.
- Ann Gaeremynck, 1995. "The use of depreciation in accounting as a signalling device," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 581-583.
- Sandahl, Gert & Sjogren, Stefan, 2003. "Capital budgeting methods among Sweden's largest groups of companies. The state of the art and a comparison with earlier studies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 51-69, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:121:y:2009:i:2:p:519-532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.