Doyle et al. (2003, this issue) provide evidence that IBES exclusions have incremental explanatory power (over GAAP earnings) for future cash flows, for market-adjusted returns at the earnings announcement date, and for future market-adjusted returns. They argue that this evidence supports the viewpoint that “the current regulatory concern about the use of pro forma earnings may be warranted.” My contention in this discussion is that one can readily posit alternative explanations for each of the empirical results, in turn suggesting that the results do not provide a basis for regulatory concern. Further, since there is considerable evidence that IBES earnings differ from pro forma earnings, it is not clear that the empirical analyzes in this paper may be used to draw any conclusions about pro forma earnings.
Review of Accounting Studies – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 2, 2004
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud