Discussion of “The Predictive Value of Expenses Excluded from Pro Forma Earnings”

Discussion of “The Predictive Value of Expenses Excluded from Pro Forma Earnings” 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Review of Accounting Studies Springer Journals

Discussion of “The Predictive Value of Expenses Excluded from Pro Forma Earnings”

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/discussion-of-the-predictive-value-of-expenses-excluded-from-pro-forma-0r2dgsk5mI
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Business and Management; Accounting/Auditing; Corporate Finance; Public Finance
ISSN
1380-6653
eISSN
1573-7136
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1024457227197
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Review of Accounting StudiesSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 2, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off