IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v12y2007i2d10.1007_s11142-007-9036-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discussion of “another look at GAAP versus the Street: an empirical assessment of measurement error bias”

Author

Listed:
  • Theodore E. Christensen

    (Brigham Young University)

Abstract

Cohen, Hann, and Ogneva [(2007) Review of Accounting Studies, Forthcoming] provide evidence on how measurement error affects inferences this literature. In particular, they provide a theoretical framework for understanding (1) the source of differences in market reactions to GAAP and Street earnings and (2) why we observe a divergence over time between ERCs based on these two earnings metrics. Moreover, they present empirical evidence on practical solutions researchers can use to mitigate the effects of measurement error. I discuss the implications of their results and provide new empirical evidence to highlight how their results apply to future research. In particular, I use a large sample of manager-adjusted “pro forma” earnings numbers voluntarily disclosed in quarterly earnings press releases to provide additional evidence about the implications of their research. Descriptive statistics based on these data illustrate the degree of measurement error in different earnings metrics. The results suggest that additional research is needed to determine the extent to which a random walk earnings expectation and reverse regression can mitigate the effects of measurement error.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodore E. Christensen, 2007. "Discussion of “another look at GAAP versus the Street: an empirical assessment of measurement error bias”," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 305-321, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:12:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-007-9036-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-007-9036-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-007-9036-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-007-9036-1?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhattacharya, Nilabhra & Black, Ervin L. & Christensen, Theodore E. & Larson, Chad R., 2003. "Assessing the relative informativeness and permanence of pro forma earnings and GAAP operating earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 285-319, December.
    2. Bradshaw, Mark T., 2003. "A discussion of 'Assessing the relative informativeness and permanence of pro forma earnings and GAAP operating earnings'," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 321-335, December.
    3. Peter Easton, 2003. "Discussion of “The Predictive Value of Expenses Excluded from Pro Forma Earnings”," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 175-183, June.
    4. Daniel A. Cohen & Rebecca N. Hann & Maria Ogneva, 2007. "Another look at GAAP versus the Street: an empirical assessment of measurement error bias," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 271-303, September.
    5. Mark T. Bradshaw & Richard G. Sloan, 2002. "GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two Alternative Definitions of Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 41-66, March.
    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. Theodore E. Christensen, 2012. "Discussion of “Why do pro forma and street earnings not reflect changes in GAAP? Evidence from SFAS 123R”," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 563-571, September.
    2. Bradshaw, Mark T. & Christensen, Theodore E. & Gee, Kurt H. & Whipple, Benjamin C., 2018. "Analysts’ GAAP earnings forecasts and their implications for accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 46-66.
    3. Jeffery S. Abarbanell & Reuven Lehavy, 2007. "Letting the “Tail Wag the Dog†: The Debate over GAAP versus Street Earnings Revisited," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 675-723, September.
    4. Chih-Ying Chen, 2010. "Do analysts and investors fully understand the persistence of the items excluded from Street earnings?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 32-69, March.
    5. Jarva, Henry & Kallunki, Juha-Pekka & Livne, Gilad, 2019. "Earnings performance measures and CEO turnover: Street versus GAAP earnings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 249-266.
    6. Mary E. Barth & Ian D. Gow & Daniel J. Taylor, 2012. "Why do pro forma and Street earnings not reflect changes in GAAP? Evidence from SFAS 123R," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 526-562, September.
    7. Beyer, Anne & Cohen, Daniel A. & Lys, Thomas Z. & Walther, Beverly R., 2010. "The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 296-343, December.
    8. Edith Leung & David Veenman, 2018. "Non‐GAAP Earnings Disclosure in Loss Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 56(4), pages 1083-1137, September.
    9. Bradley Blaylock & Bradley P. Lawson & Michael A. Mayberry, 2020. "Taxable income, future profitability, and stock returns," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(7-8), pages 858-881, July.
    10. Florian Meier, 2020. "The Age of Cheap Money and Passive Investing: Are Pro Forma Earnings Value Relevant?," Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(2), pages 1-1.
    11. Anantharaman, Divya & Chuk, Elizabeth & Kamath, Saipriya, 2024. "A demotion in disguise? The real effects of relocating pension smoothing from operating income to non-operating income," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 124405, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Mei Luo & Shuai Shao & Frank Zhang, 2018. "Does financial reporting above or below operating income matter to firms and investors? The case of investment income in China," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1754-1790, December.
    13. Ryan J. Casey & George W. Ruch, 2024. "Are earnings better than cash flows at predicting future cash flows? Evidence from apples-to-apples comparisons," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 3218-3257, December.
    14. Dirk E. Black & Ervin L. Black & Theodore E. Christensen & Kurt H. Gee, 2022. "Comparing Non-GAAP EPS in Earnings Announcements and Proxy Statements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1353-1377, February.
    15. Campbell, Linda & Pitman, Marshall K., 2009. "Post-regulation G findings," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 100-106.
    16. Young-Soo Choi & Stephen Lin & Martin Walker & Steven Young, 2007. "Disagreement over the persistence of earnings components: evidence on the properties of management-specific adjustments to GAAP earnings," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 595-622, December.
    17. Andersson, Patric & Hellman, Niclas, 2004. "The impact of pro forma profits on analyst forecasts: Some experimental evidence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:5, Stockholm School of Economics.
    18. Matthew Kubic, 2025. "The benefits of article 11 pro forma disclosure," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 2768-2821, September.
    19. Zachary Kaplan & Xiumin Martin & Yifang Xie, 2021. "Truncating Optimism," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 59(5), pages 1827-1884, December.
    20. Theodore E. Christensen & Enrique Gomez & Matthew Ma & Jing Pan, 2021. "Analysts’ role in shaping non-GAAP reporting: evidence from a natural experiment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 172-217, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • 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:spr:reaccs:v:12:y:2007:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-007-9036-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.