季度收入模式和盈余管理【外文翻译】
盈余管理的指标

盈余管理的指标盈余管理是企业财务管理中的重要一环,它通过合理的盈余分配和管理,为企业创造更多的价值和利润。
本文将从不同角度探讨盈余管理的指标,以人类视角进行阐述,使读者更好地理解和应用。
一、盈余收入率盈余收入率是衡量企业盈余管理效果的重要指标之一。
它表示企业在一定时期内实现的盈余收入与总收入的比例。
通过提高盈余收入率,企业可以增加利润,提高经济效益。
例如,企业可以通过降低成本、提高销售额等方式来增加盈余收入率,实现盈余最大化。
二、盈余分配比例盈余分配比例是企业盈余管理中的关键指标之一。
它表示企业将盈余分配给股东和留存盈余的比例。
盈余分配比例的合理选择可以平衡股东的利益和企业的发展需求。
例如,企业可以根据实际情况确定分红比例,既满足股东的利益诉求,又为企业留存足够的盈余用于扩大再投资。
三、盈余质量盈余质量是衡量企业盈余管理质量的重要指标之一。
它表示企业盈余的可靠性和稳定性。
高质量的盈余意味着企业能够持续获得稳定的盈利,并能够及时准确地反映企业的经营状况。
例如,企业可以通过加强内部控制、规范会计核算等方式提高盈余质量,减少盈余管理风险。
四、盈余增长率盈余增长率是衡量企业盈余管理效果的重要指标之一。
它表示企业盈余在一定时期内的增长速度。
通过提高盈余增长率,企业可以实现持续增长,增强市场竞争力。
例如,企业可以通过创新产品、拓展市场等方式提高盈余增长率,实现盈余增长和企业价值的双赢。
五、盈余现金流盈余现金流是企业盈余管理的重要指标之一。
它表示企业盈余的现金流入状况。
良好的盈余现金流可以保证企业的偿债能力和经营稳定性。
例如,企业可以通过优化资金运作、控制应收账款等方式提高盈余现金流,确保企业的经营活动正常运转。
盈余管理的指标是企业实现盈余最大化和价值创造的重要工具。
通过合理选择和运用这些指标,企业可以优化盈余管理,提高企业的经济效益和市场竞争力。
因此,企业应该重视盈余管理的指标,不断完善盈余管理体系,实现可持续发展。
盈余管理基本理论及其研究述评论文

盈余管理基本理论及其研究述评论文在学术界盈余管理(earningsmanagement)是一个有20年的研究话题什么是盈余管理?盈余管理产生的条件和动机有些?盈余管理研究包括些内容?盈余管理研究的有什么特点?盈余管理研究的未来方向在儿?所有这些都是我们在研究盈余管理时必须弄清楚的基本问题一、盈余管理的“经济收益观”与“信息观”在学术界盈余管理早期一般被理解为旨在有目的地干预对外财务报告过程以获取某些私人利益的“披露管理”(disclosuremanagement)对于这个定义以下几点需要引起我们特别的注意:1.把盈余管理限定在对外报告领域而把管理会计报告以及那些意在或改变公认会计原则的活动(如游说财务会计准则委员会)等排除在其讨论之外这样考虑的主要原因可能有两个:一是便于讨论如果将盈余管理仅限于对外报告领域在现行的公认会计原则和应计制下讨论“干预”问题则可以把对盈余管理的研究简化许多二是在1990年以前会计理论界对盈余管理的研究以对外财务报告为主尽管当时人们就注意到报酬方案(pensationschemes)和部门经理的私人信息是激励对内部管理会计报告进行操纵的潜在因素但很可能是由于资料难得这一领域的研究成果比较少见那一阶段比较多见的研究成果是盈余管理的技术应计制下的会计政策、会计选择与股票回报的关系等难怪戴维森等人在其所著的《会计:商业语言》中专辟一节讨论“会计戏法”(accountingmagic)问题并给盈余管理下了一个更加具体而狭义的定义:在公认会计原则限制的范围内为了把报告盈利调整到满意水平而采取有计划行动步骤的过程2.在这个定义中提出了盈余管理的主要目的是获取某些私人利益(privategain)这里所说的获取某些私人利益是与对外财务报告过程的中立性运作(neutraloperation)相对立的因为现代财务报告的核心思想之一就是中立性原则以及由此而来的财务报告的不偏不倚盈余管理实质上是背离了中立性原则由此造成对外财务报告有所偏重、有所倚靠盈余管理的出发点在局部利益、部分利益或某些人的利益它无疑会损害公众利益3.在定义盈余管理时并没有倚赖某一特定的盈利概念而是基于会计数据作为是信息的观点进行讨论的在这个定义中盈余管理在会计系统内经理可以透过在公认会计原则范围内的会计方法选择和将某些给定的方法用特别的方式加以运用(如改变折旧资产的服务年限)来控制盈利但事实上盈余管理可以存在于对外披露过程的任何一个环节也可以采用多种多样的形式例如融资决策、投资或生产决策(如研发费和广告费投放百分比的确定、生产线的增减、收购另一家公司)等都会影响企业某一期间的盈利这些因素对盈余管理的影响可看成是“实际的”盈余管理传统上人们认为盈余管理是与经济收益(有时也叫收益)有关的一个概念在经济收益观(economicineperspective)下有一些数据(譬如经济收益)被盈余管理故意地歪曲了经济收益之所以会被歪曲而成为会计的报告收益除了盈余管理外另一个影响因素是应计制会计和公认会计原则应计制会计和公认会计原则也将导致会计数据与收益有偏差当然经济收益只有在一定的条件下才能有意义地加以定义在现实的报告系统中是见不到的一般说来经济收益是看不见的即使如此在经济收益观下人们还是要把看不见的收益作为衡量偏差的基准我们认为以信息观(informationperspective)来看待盈余管理更有意义在信息观下盈利仅仅是许多用作决策和判断的信号中的一个信息观意味着会计数据的重要属性是其“信息含量”(informationcontent)这一统计特性盈余管理的信息观还假定公司经理拥有私人信息在一套既定的委托代理契约下公司经理不仅可以就会计程序作出选择而且还可以据此程序作出不同的估计但在信息观下人们并不需要作为价值的盈利概念与收益基准有关的计量偏差问题也不复存在数据的价值在经济收益观下至关重要但在信息现下则不再是第一位的属性了随着人们对盈余管理认识和的深入特别是同时从收益观和信息观两个角度来看待盈余管理盈余管理应当有一个更加全面和准确的概念根据以上我们认为:盈余管理是管理当局为了误导其他信息使用者对企业经营业绩的理解或那些基于会计数据的契约的结果在编报财务报告和“构造”交易事项以改变财务报告时作出判断和会计选择的过程二、盈余管理的基本特征对盈余管理基本特征的研究有助于把握盈余管理研究的和框架根据前面的讨论盈余管理的基本特性包括:1.从一个足够长的时段(最长也就是企业的整个生命期)来看盈余管理并不增加或减少企业实际的盈利但会改变企业实际盈利在不同的会计期间的反映和分布换句话说盈余管理影响的是会计数据尤其是会计中的报告盈利而不是企业的实际盈利会计的选择、会计方法的运用和会计估计的变动、会计方法的运用时点、交易事项发生时点的控制都是典型的盈余管理手段2.盈余管理必然会同时涉及经济收益和会计数据的信号作用这里所说的经济收益与上段提到的企业实际盈利并没有实质上的差别尽管人们并不知道企业究竟有多大的经济收益但盈余管理最终还是离不开经济收益这一基准更何况在盈余管理研究中人们已开始寻找某些指标如现金流量等并试图在某种意义和程度上来反映经济收益应当注意到无论是盈余管理在企业的实践还是盈余管理的研究都非常关心会计数据的信息含量和信号作用盈余管理所瞄准的方向正是会计数据的信息含量和信号作用关于盈余管理的“经济收益观”与“信息观”的地位和重要性在不同的国家由于证券市场的发达和完善程度差异较大而表现出不同的特点发达证券市场环境下的盈余管理人们考虑会计数据的信息含量和信号作用就会多一些其“信息观”的重要地位也更加明显些;相反欠发达证券市场环境下的盈余管理人们则容易拘泥于会计报告收益与经济收益或其它法规决定的收益之间的偏差其“经济收益观”的地位相应地更为突出3.盈余管理的主体是企业管理当局从现有的研究不难发现在盈余管理的每一幕“戏剧”中唱主角的无非是公司的经理、部门经理和董事会无论是会计方法的选择、会计方法的运用和会计估计的变动、会计方法的运用时点还是交易事项发生时点的控制最终的决定权都在他们手中当然会计人员也加入其中但应看作是配角在这里可以明确企业管理当局对盈余管理应当承担的责任4.盈余管理的客体主要是公认会计原则、会计方法和会计估计此外时间特别是时点的选择也是盈余管理的对象之一在研究盈余管理时我们必须同时具有时间和空间的观念公认会计原则会计方法和会计估计等属于盈余管理的空间因素;会计方法的运用时点和交易事项发生时点的控制则可看作是盈余管理的时间因素需要加以说明的是盈余管理最终的对象还是会计数据本身人们所说的盈余管理最终也就是在会计数据上作文章5.盈余管理的目的既明确又非常复杂所谓明确是指盈余管理的主要目的在于获取私人利益这点是可以充分加以肯定的盈余管理是与公众利益、中立性原则相矛盾的我们也应注意到盈余管理的目的又非常复杂谁是盈余管理的受益者?这里的情况比较复杂上面提到盈余管理的主体是企业管理当局盈余管理照顾的私人利益较多的情形是企业管理当局的利益如经理的分红、认股权以及晋升机会等在许多新闻报道和研究文献中我们常常看到的盈余管理的受害者一般都是股东、低层的雇员甚至包括政府例如丹斯基(J.Demski)的研究表明代理人可以通过盈余管理来传达其拥有的高超管理技能而实际上这些代理人可能并不具备会计报告盈利中所代表的管理技能阿亚等人(AryaA.GloverJ.S.Sunder)则发现盈余管理限制了委托人解雇代理人的倾向还可以减少委托人对于代理人正常工作的干预即使是企业管理当局的利益对每一个盈余管理的参与者来说也不是利益均沾的当然盈余管理有时也照顾某些股东的利益盈余管理的利益表现形式也十分复杂有的是直接的利益如经理人员分红的增加有的是间接的利益如职位晋升、股价飙升数据的信号作用也常常表现在这里有的是立竿见影的有的则要潜伏很长的时期正是由于盈余管理的目的既明确又非常复杂因此大众传播媒介普遍认为盈余管理是件坏事它们还比较喜欢采用盈利操纵(earningsmanipulation)的概念;而机会主义的管理者则认为盈余管理是一个中性的概念会计学术界的许多也持这种观点三、“契约磨擦”与“沟通磨擦”在现实里可以见到许多盈余管理的激励因素有的属管理激励有的是成本激励或其它激励在管理激励中既有分红和晋升的诱惑又有被解除职位的压力在政治成本激励中有许多针对政府管制而进行的盈余管理此外盈余管理还可被用作是资劳双方讨价还价的工具在某些特定的条件下盈余管理也很有吸引力正因为如此才有所谓以股利为基础的盈余管理、以节税为目的的盈余管理、困境的盈余管理、运用盈余管理进行风险管理、公司首次公开募股(IPO)时的盈余管理等等盈余管理也有许多阻碍的因素注册会计师审计、证券交易监管机构的监管、税务稽查和股东大会等都在一定程度上阻碍和限制了盈余管理的泛滥但上述限制因素往往也受到成本效益原则的限制因此从整体而言盈余管理的激励因素要比阻碍因素强势得多在世界各国几乎每天都能听到公司上调或调低盈利虚报营业收益的故事例如美国在线公司为开发潜在客户群给客户赠送磁碟之后将所有发生的费用资本化;而微软公司则被指控通过递延确认实际所得收入来下调盈利在这方面我国也有数不尽的例子会计“打假”始终效果不明显说明大家还是不怕盈余管理还是有很多激励因素的在会计报告系统中留有许多盈余管理的机会公认会计原则还存在不少局限性美国证券交易委员会主席雷维特(A.Levitt)1998年就曾在纽约大学与商学中心发表过题为“数字游戏”(numbergames)的演讲猛烈批评某些低质量的会计准则应计制会计中的预计、摊销等都很容易被利用作盈余管理同时不确定的经济交易和会计事项也越来越多对这些不确定经济交易和会计事项的正确判断也越来越困难在现代公司治理结构中也为管理当局进行盈余管理提供了一些条件例如现行的委托人与代理人之间的契约股东会、董事长与经理之间相互关系的制度规范仍存在许多不完善的地方盈余管理乘虚而入也就见怪不怪了通过深入的研究一些会计学家进一步得出了盈余管理产生的两个基本条件:一个是契约磨擦(contractingfrictions);另一个是沟通磨擦(municationfrictions)如果委托人与代理人之间没有契约磨擦他们之间的沟通也完全透明的委托人可以掌握并使用充分信息盈余管理也就不可能发生在委托代理关系的模型中人们常常事先设定一套管理契约和报告规则事实上无论是管理契约还是报告规则都面临随着经济和企业情况变化而变化的压力但是由于管理契约和报告规则通常被看作是固定的、僵化的(即使有变化也还是跟不上经济和企业情况变化的步伐)会与现实的需要产生矛盾因此盈余管理便应运而生在这里盈余管理常被用来解决由于管理契约和报告规则与现实情形发生磨擦所引起的而管理契约和报告规则就成为盈余管理问题存在的内生变量仅仅用契约磨擦是无法完全解释盈余管理的产生与存在的人们之所以无法消除盈余管理是因为信息不对称(asymmetricinformation)最典型的是经理知道的东西包括股东在内的其他人并不一定知道信息不对称阻碍了信息交流和沟通经理也就不可能把他所掌握的全部私人信息传递出去当然有一些信息传播是被法律禁止的正是有了沟通磨擦企业管理当局才会在盈余管理中大有作为需要说明契约安排的修正并不能完全消除沟通磨擦但是如果经理把所有的私人信息都传递出去并且又不会增加成本可以预期契约的安排将朝着有利于鼓励地披露信息的方向由此可见沟通磨擦比契约磨擦对于理解盈余管理生存的条件还更有意义通过和以上解释盈余管理生存的两个基本条件可以初步得出以下结论:1.盈余管理是研究中的一个重要课题但盈余管理本身并不完全是一个会计无论从其生存条件还是从其主体看盈余管理涉及一系列的管理甚至问题委托人与代理人契约的确立、修正和实施信息不对称都是经济学和管中的重要研究也是经济管理面临的棘手问题2.盈余管理的存在有其特定的背景和条件在现代市场经济中可以预见人们不可能完全解决契约磨擦和沟通磨擦的问题尤其是在信息交流方面代理人永远都会拥有一部分私人信息这些信息永远都不可能被委托人或其他会计信息使用者完全知晓因为不允许这样做成本效益原则也不赞成这样做技术上也还存在问题因此盈余管理将会继续存在下去透过法律、规则和人力是不可能把它完全消除的除非市场经济也不再存在了3.既然在市场经济环境中无法透过法律、规则和人力去消除盈余管理问题那么我们就应当对盈余管理的客观存在有一个的观念和正确的认识用平静的心态对待它既不能让它放任自流也不可能完全杜绝要达成这种共识投资者等委托人以及会计信息的其他使用者也要有这种认识从社会的角度讲政府和有关社会团体有责任营造良好的市场环境特别是有效的资本市场和证券市场制定和完善规范会计报告的相关法律、制度和公认会计原则加强外部监管从的角度看有关方面(如投资者、经营管理者等)要尽可能签订完善的契约、合同代理人要树立正确的商业伦理道德依法经营、道德管理此外委托人以及会计信息的其他使用者还有必要掌握识别盈余管理的知识和技能能根据其特定的决策需要对会计数据或报告盈利作出适当的调整四、盈余管理实证研究及其深远在盈余管理研究的大量中可以将它们粗略地分成三大类一是收益平滑对收益平滑的研究着重于降低不同时期盈利的起伏主要目的是方便未来盈利的预测并减小市场风险二是基于契约观点(contractingview)的盈余管理研究发现有的契约是以会计数据为基础的而另外一些则与会计信息有着隐含的联系其中前者即显现契约(explicitcontracts)有管理报酬计划、债务协议、税收和管制等在研究中一般都发现了上述契约影响盈余管理的支持证据与会计数据间接有关的契约还包括劳资合同、代理人竞争和主管的变动、审计合约、对外募股、公司治理制度等与第一类契约相比这些契约与盈余管理的关系则要复杂得多三是计量问题学术界对盈余管理的研究大都采用实证研究的方法在盈余管理的实证研究中要解决的主要问题包括两个大的方面:一方面将盈利区分为操纵过的和没有操纵过的部分一般说来公司的报告盈利由现金流量和对现金流量的会计调整两部分组成后者称之为应计部分(accruals)总体应计部分可进一步拆分为非主观应计部分(nondiscretionaryaccruals)和主观应计部分(discretionaryaccruals)在这里要说明一下非主观应计部分和主观应计部分两个概念其中非主观应计部分秉承了创造应计会计的原本目的即提高会计信息的质量使之能够更加准确地反映企业在特定时点的财务状况和特定时期的财务成果因此非主观应计部分是在尊重客观经济现实的前提下对由于现金收付时点与交易事项发生时点不一致这一时差所产生的影响进行调整这种调整是相对客观的强调的是尊重客观经济现实是在公认会计原则的约束范围内完成的与非主观应计部分相对应主观应计部分则是企业基于特定私人利益目的在某一或某些特定时期通过对经济交易的刻意安排和财务报告的刻意调整创造出符合其需要的报告盈利这种调整可以利用公认会计原则的弹性在公认会计原则约束范围内完成但也可能超出公认会计原则的框架在对盈余管理的实证研究中有四种主要模型以及以它们为基础的改进或衍生模型被较为广泛的采用以度量主观应计部分这四种模型分别是希利模型(Healymodel)、迪安龙模型(DeAngelomodel)、琼斯模型(Jonesmodel)和行业模型(industrymodel)这四种模型的核心均在于对非主观应计部分的假设或处理上在希利模型和迪安戈模型中非主观应计部分从总体上看被假定为在各个考察期间保持不变进而借由对比总体应计部分来判断样本在特定期间是否存在主观应计部分琼斯模型和行业模型则释放了非主观应计部分在各个考察期间保持不变的假定借助较长的时间序列或大容量的行业配对样本运用多元线性回归等统计工具计量非主观应计部分是较为复杂但更精确的计量模型另一方面对盈余管理的种种情形进行解释例如有的被解释为管理激励引起的盈余管理在管理激励引起的盈余管理中又有多种具体的解释如报酬契约、代理人竞争和债务契约等有的被解释为成本激励引起的盈余管理在政治成本激励引起的盈余管理中也存在多种多样的具体情况如院外游说、政府管制甚至劳资谈判此外还有其它一些特殊的解释如以股利为基础的盈余管理以节税为目的的盈余管理、困境的盈余管理、运用盈余管理进行风险管理、IPO过程的盈余管理等等在过去的20年间有一大批盈余管理的实证成果发表盈余管理的实证研究不仅对实务和公认会计原则的制订产生了深远的而且还大大地促进了会计及其研究的其意义主要有:1.盈余管理的实证研究加深了人们对应计制会计的认识对现金流量表的推广起到了极大的作用“现金为王”(cashisking)的观念在工商管理界非常普遍现金流量表和“现金为王”的观念为什么会在80年代末期开始流行开来有其特定的背景但也与盈余管理的实证研究密切相关因为通过研究发现了大量的人为地操纵盈利的行为会计数据成为数字游戏通过研究还发现了操纵盈利的行为主要是来自企业管理当局对应计制会计的局限性的过分利用钻了很多应计制会计的空子在这些研究的基础上人们将现金收付制发展成现金流量基础(cashbasis)2.盈余管理的实证研究加速了公认会计原则的完善和发展尤其是表现在增加对外财务报告的透明度方面前面谈到沟通磨擦是盈余管理生存的重要条件之一为什么会有沟通磨擦原因在于信息不对称代理人知道的很多信息委托人可能知之甚少要改善这个增加对外财务报告的透明度是必不可少的近年来各国公认会计原则和国际会计准则的修订、新准则的立项和制订都是朝着这一方向发展的3.盈余管理的实证研究不仅自身成为现代会计理论研究的重要组成部分而且还大大促进了现代会计理论及其研究方法的发展据《会计与经济学杂志》(JournalofAccountingandEconomics)1997年所做的一项统计发表在该杂志上有关“契约”话题的论文19791986、19871991、19921996年间总共分别为28、25和49篇占该杂志同期发表论文总数的35%、29%和48%在这些有关契约话题的论文中直接采用实证方法研究管理报酬(managementpensation)契约的就分别有11、4和12篇由此可见盈余管理实证研究本身就在现代会计理论研究中占有重要的地位盈余管理的实证研究也促进了会计与资本市场、审计、盈利预测、行为会计以及所得税会计等领域的研究盈余管理的实证研究还对公司治理结构的完善、组织行为与控制、绩效评估与报酬计划、证券市场监管等一系列理论与实务问题的解决提供了重要的依据会计学术界对盈余管理的研究已取得了很大的进展但也还存在不少问题其中最为主要的问题是:各种各样的盈余管理实证研究的结果迄今还有非常大的差别主要原因有:盈余管理实证研究中采用了不够严密的方法将盈利划分为操纵过的和没有操纵的部分;对盈余管理的大多数实证研究都只限于某一时期或某一项目;对盈余管理的解释太狭义;代理人隐瞒其操纵盈利的手法不利于收集盈余管理实证研究所需的数据;委托人自愿让代理人隐瞒信息;盈余管理很可能是由两个或多个因素导致的大多数的实证研究只着重于一个因素研究结果当然不够理想可以预期未来的盈余管理研究不仅要进一步解决以上问题而且还要特别注意研究盈余管理对股价和资源配置的影响。
德国公认会计准则与国际财务报告准则下的盈余管理【外文翻译】

本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文题目Earnings Management under German GAAP versus IFRS 外文出处 European Accounting Review外文作者 Tendeloo, B.V., and Vanstraelen, A原文:Earnings Management under German GAAP versus IFRS AbstractThis paper addresses the question whether voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is associated with lower earnings management. Ball et al. (Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36(1–3), pp. 235–270, 2003) argue that adopting high quality standards might be a necessary condition for high quality information, but not necessarily a sufficient one. In Germany, a code-law country with low investor protection rights, a relatively large number of companies have chosen to voluntarily adopt IFRS prior to 2005. We investigate whether German companies that have adopted IFRS engage significantly less in earnings management compared to German companies reporting under German generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), while controlling for other differences in earnings management incentives. Our sample, consisting of German listed companies, contains 636 firm-year observations relating to the period 1999–2001. Our results suggest that IFRS-adopters do not present different earnings management behavior compared to companies reporting under German GAAP. These findings contribute to the current debate on whether high quality standards are sufficient and effective in countries with weak investor protection rights. They indicate that voluntary adopters of IFRS in Germany cannot be associated with lower earnings management.1. IntroductionThe International Accounting Standards (IAS), now renamed as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), have been developed to harmonize corporate accounting practice and to answer the need for high quality standards to be adopted inthe world’s major capital markets.Ball et al. (2003) argue that adopting high quality standards might be a necessary condition for high quality information, but not necessarily a sufficient one. This paper contributes to this debate by examining whether the adoption of high quality standards like IFRS is associated with high financial reporting quality. In particular, we question whether IFRS a re sufficient to override managers’ incentives to engage in earnings management and affect the quality of reported earnings.Previous research provides evidence that the magnitude of earnings management is on average higher in code-law countries with low investor protection rights, compared to common-law countries with high investor protection rights (Leuz et al., 2003). Hence, to assess whether firms that report under IFRS can be associated with higher earnings quality we focus on Germany, which is a code-law country with relatively low investor protection rights (La Portal et al.,2000). Moreover, a relatively large number of German companies have already voluntarily chosen to adopt IFRS prior to 2005. This allows a comparison between companies that have adopted IFRS versus companies that report under domestic generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).The results of our research show that IFRS do not impose a significant constraint on earnings management, as measured by discretionary accruals. On the contrary, adopting IFRS seems to increase the magnitude of discretionary accruals. Our results further suggest that companies that have adopted IFRS engage more in earnings smoothing, although this effect is significantly reduced when the company has a Big 4 auditor. However, hidden reserves, which are allowed under German GAAP to manage earnings, are not entirely picked up by the traditional accruals measures. When hidden reserves are taken into consideration, our results show that IFRS-adopters do not present different earnings management behavior compared to companies reporting under German GAAP. Hence, our results indicate that adopters of IFRS cannot be associated with lower earnings management. This finding suggests that the adoption of high quality standards is not a sufficient condition for providing high quality information in code-law countries with low investor protection rights.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the relevant literature and provide the theoretical background of the paper. Section 3 provides an overview of the German accounting system. In Section 4, we formulate the research hypotheses. Section 5 describes the research design. The results of thestudy are presented in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7, we summarize our results, discuss the implications and limitations of our analysis and give suggestions for further research.2. Previous Literature2.1. Adoption of International Accounting StandardsThe International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), which was established in 1973 and now renamed as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), aims to achieve uniformity in the accounting standards used by businesses and other organizations for financial reporting around the world (IASB website). The benefits of the adoption of international accounting standards are considered to be the following. First, it should improve the ability of investors to make informed financial decisions and eliminate confusion arising from different measures of financial position and performance across countries, thereby leading to a reduced risk for investors and a lower cost of capital for companies. Second, it should lower costs arising from multiple reporting. Third, it should encourage international investment. Finally, it should lead to amore efficient allocation of savings worldwide (Street et al., 1999).The original International Accounting Standards were mostly descriptive in nature and contained many alternative treatments. Because of this flexibility and a continuing lack of comparability across countries, the standards came under heavy criticism in the late 1980s. In response to this criticism, the IASC started the Comparability Project in 1987. The revised standards, which became effective in 1995, substantially reduced the alternative treatments and increased the disclosure requirements (Nobes, 2002). In July 1995, the IASC and the International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO) agreed to a list of accounting issues that needed to be addressed for obtaining IOSCO’s endorsement of the standards. The subsequent Core Standards Project led again to substantial revisions of IAS. In May 2000, the IASC received IOSCO’s endorsement subject to ‘reconciliation where necessary to address subst antive outstanding issues at a national or regional level’ (IOSCO Press Release, 17 May 2000). The Core Standards Project has brought a wider recognition to IAS around the world. For example, the European Parliament has issued a regulation (1606/2002/EC) requiring all EU listed companies to prepare consolidated financial statements based on InternationalAccounting Standards by 2005. In a number of countries, including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italyand Switzerland, companies were already permitted to prepare consolidated financial statements under IFRS (or US GAAP) prior to 2005.Since German accounting standards and disclosure practices have been criticized in the investor community (Leuz and Verrechia, 2000), a relatively large number of German firms have adopted international accounting standards such as IFRS or US GAAP. This switch is thought to represent a substantial commitment to transparent financial reporting for the following two reasons. First, IFRS adoption itself might effectively enhance financial reporting quality. Second, firms which adopt IFRS or US GAAP might do so because they have higher incentives to report transparently, such as high financing needs. In this case, IFRS serves as a proxy for a credible commitment to higher quality accounting. A study conducted by Dumontier and Raffournier (1998) with Swiss data reveals that early adopters of IFRS ‘are larger, more internationally diversified, less capital intensive and have a more diffuse ownership’. They argue that the decision t o apply IFRS is primarily influenced by political costs and pressures from outside markets. Murphy (1999) also used Swiss data to study the determinants of the adoption of IFRS. She found that companies that adopt IFRS have a higher percentage of foreign sales and a higher number of foreign exchange listings. El-Gazzar et al. (1999) found the same relationships using data from various countries. In addition, they concluded that being domiciled in an EU country and having a lower debt to equity ratio is positively associated with the adoption of IFRS. Other determinants of the adoption of international standards mentioned in the literature include a high profitability, the issuance of equity during the year of adoption, domestic GAAP differing significantly from IFRS or US GAAP and, related to the latter, being domiciled in a country with a bank-oriented financial system (Ashbaugh, 2001; Cuijpers and Buijink, 2003).Not all companies that seek the international investment status that comes with the adoption of IFRS are, however, willing to fulfill all of the requirements and obligations involved. According to a study by Street and Gray (2002) there is a significant non-compliance with IFRS in 1998 company reports, especially in the case of IFRS disclosure requirements. With the revision of IAS 1, effective for financial statements covering periods beginning on or after 1 July 1998, financial statements are prohibited from noting compliance with International Accounting Standards ‘unless they comply with all the requirements of each applicable Standard and each applicable Interpretation of the Standing Interpretations Committee’.All companies included in our IFRS sample mention IFRS compliance in their financial statements after the revised IAS 1 became effective. Nevertheless, adopters of IFRS that appear to be fully compliant might as well be falsely signaling to be of high quality. Ball et al. (2000) argue that firms’ incentives to comply with accounting standards depend on the penalties assessed for non-compliance.When costs of complying to IFRS are viewed to exceed the costs of noncompliance, substantial non-compliance will continue to be a problem. While the main objective of adopting IFRS is considered to be enhancing the quality of the information provided in the financial statements, Ball et al. (2003) further suggest that adopting high quality standards might be a necessary condition for high quality information but not a sufficient condition. If the adoption of IFRS cannot be associated with significantly higher financial reporting quality, IFRS adoption cannot serve as a signaling instrument for a credible commitment to higher quality accounting. This study addresses this issue empirically.2.2. Earnings Management: Incentives and ConstraintsOne way of assessing the quality of reported earnings is examining to what extent earnings are managed, with the intention to ‘either mislead some stakeholders about the underlying economic performance of the company or to influence contractual outcomes that depend o n reported accounting numbers’ (Healy and Wahlen, 1999). Incentives for earnings management, either through accounting decisions or structuring transactions, are ample. Managers may be inclined to manage earnings due to the existence of explicit and implic it contracts, the firm’s relation with capital markets, the need for external financing, the political and regulatory environment or several other specific circumstances (Vander Bauwhede, 2001).A number of studies suggest that the quality of reported financial statement information is in large part determined by the underlying economic and institutional factors influencing managers’ and auditors’ incentives. According to Ball et al. (2000) the demand for accounting income differs systematically between common-law and code-law countries. In common-law countries, which are characterized by arm’s length debt and equity markets, a diverse base of investors, high risk of litigation and strong investor protection, accounting information is designed to meet the needs of investors. In code-law countries, capital markets are less active. Investor protection is weak, litigation rates are lower and companies are more financed by banks, other financial institutions and the government, which results in less need for publicdisclosure. Accounting information is therefore designed more to meet other demands, including reduction in political costs and determination of income tax and dividend payments (Ball et al., 2000; La Portaet al., 2000). Leuz et al. (2003) show that earnings management is more prevalent in code-law countries compared to common-law countries. The benefits (e.g.enhanced liquidity) of engaging in earnings management appear to outweigh the costs (e.g. litigation) more in countries with weak investor protection rights. Firms which adopt IFRS, however, can be expected to have incentives to report investor-oriented information and thus engage significantly less in earnings management than non-adopters. On the other hand, low enforcement and low litigation risk might encourage low quality firms to falsely signal to be of high quality by adopting IFRS. This study addresses the question whether adoption of IFRS is associated with lower earnings management in Germany, which La Porta et al. (2000) classify as a country with low investor protection rights.Accounting rules can limit a manager’s ability to distort reported earnings. But the extent to which accounting rules influence reported earnings and curb earnings management depends on how well these rules are enforced (Leuz et al., 2003). Apart from clear accounting standards, strong investor and creditor protection requires a statutory audit, monitoring by supervisors and effective sanctions.A number of studies have shown that Big 4 auditors constitute a constraint on earnings management (DeFond and Jiambalvo, 1991, 1994; Becker et al., 1998; Francis et al., 1999; Gore et al., 2001). However, the results of Maijoor and Vanstraelen (2002) and Francis and Wang (2003) document that the constraint constituted by a Big 4 auditor on earnings management is not uniform across countries. Street and Gray (2002) find support for the fact that being audited by a large audit firm is also positively associated with IFRS compliance, both in the case of disclosure requirements as in the case of measurement and presentation requirements. In this respect, we question whether adoption of IFRS by a company has a stronger effect on the quality of earnings of that company when audited by a Big 4 audit firm.Source: Tendeloo, B.V. and Vanstraelen, A. Earnings management under German GAAP versus IFRS [J]. European Accounting Review, 2005, 14(1): 155-180.译文:德国公认会计准则与国际财务报告准则下的盈余管理摘要:这篇论文阐述的问题是盈余管理的降低是否与国际财务报告准则(IFRS)的自愿采用有关。
5赵余兵-外文翻译

盈余管理与公司业绩盈余管理与企业绩效有趣的是,协会之间的预回购异常预提费用及回购后性能出现将在很大程度上推动这些公司的报告中最购回前的负异常应计。
这些结果是一致的路易斯(2004)的论点,因为盈利的复杂性管理和遵守一定的管理行为,投资者的困难可能会感到惊讶实现增长时低于或超过操纵收益数字的基础上形成的期望。
随后的分析也表明,一旦我们控制的效果再回购的盈余管理,是没有证据显示性能的提高,和回购之间呈显着负相关性能和预回购异常预提费用基本上消失。
这种额外的证据进一步支持了我们的猜想,采购后优越的性能,至少部分是由于前回购盈余管理。
研究的其余部分安排如下:下一节将讨论相关的研究和我们的动力。
第二节介绍我们的变量的测量的过程。
第三节介绍样本选择过程。
第四节后回购的性能进行了分析。
第五节分析的证据回购前盈余管理。
第六节分析之间的关联购买前盈余管理和回购后的表现。
这项研究的结论在第七节。
相关的研究和动机谎言(2005)认为,公司报告经营效益显着改善相对公开市场回购公告后他们的同龄人。
他推断,经理启动股票回购计划时,他们期望未来的经营业绩是资本市场的预期。
我们猜想,回购后改善报告的经营业绩也有可能被下调盈利预回购管理驱动。
我们假定经理人进行回购的目的是可能有奖励办法,以减少回购价格。
扣除回购价格有效地转移股东财富卖出(即离开股东)(即那些将他们的股份持有其余股东)。
这种财富转移管理者受益,因为他们的利益更容易被其余的对齐在企业,事业的关注,他们的股权的股东通过将来的赔偿。
经理涉嫌操纵股票价格的方法之一是通过“盈利管理“(见,例如,希利和Wahlen的(1999))。
因此,我们主张经理们可能会使用他们的报告酌情紧缩股价之前公开市场回购。
财经杂志经理必须在其财务的自由裁量权,因为在目前的会计准则所提供的灵活性报告。
例如,现行的会计规则往往提供酌情经理关于如何核算交易和/或估计未变现收益或损失。
因此,经理人的机会主义行事,可以使用他们的报告可酌情暂时扣除收入减少的回购价格在季度和/或回购公告之前的季度。
[设计]盈余管理动因与手段分析
![[设计]盈余管理动因与手段分析](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/c70bb5a868dc5022aaea998fcc22bcd127ff4258.png)
盈余管理动因与手段分析一、盈余管理定义简要回顾企业盈余从经济学角度是指企业财富的增加,即投入资源的价值小于产出的价值;从会计学的角度是指期末净资产大于期初净资产的差额。
由于产生差额的原因往往是企业经营获得利润,所以人们也常常把利润作为盈余看待。
企业盈余管理出现在19世纪,是从早期创造性会计(Creating accounting)演变而来的。
最初表现为利润平滑(Income smoothing),后来则是秘密准备(Secret reserver)。
随着会计准则和会计法规的不断完善,在国内外逐步形成了盈余管理的理论与事务。
加拿大会计学者思考特(Scott)认为盈余管理是企业管理人员在会计政策选择时选择使企业价值最大化的会计政策。
美国著名会计学者富柏(Schippes)在“盈余管理的评论”(1989)一文中认为,盈余管理是企业管理人员为了获取私利,从而有目的的干预对外财务会计报告的一种管理行为,称为“披露管理”(disclosure management)。
美国哈佛大学教授赫雷(Hearly)与美国印第安那大学倭林(Wahlen)在1999年认为,盈余管理就是企业管理当局为了自身利益在编制公司财务会计报告和进行业务交易时,主观上判断选择有利于企业的会计政策和方法、变更会计估计、安排交易发生的时间和方式以期改变报告披露的内容与事实。
在信息的不对称和披露不完全的条件下,误导公司报表使用者对企业收益状况的理解。
我国学者魏明海认为盈余管理是企业管理当局为了误导信息使用者对会计经营业绩的理解,在编制财务报告和构造交易事件以改变财务报告时做出的判断和会计选择过程。
从以上定义回顾看出,目前对盈余管理的定义尚未形成共识,有许多学者对盈余管理作了详尽的探讨,因此本文对盈余管理定义不作探讨。
本文拟通过对盈余管理动因和手段的分析入手,谈对盈余管理性质的认识。
二、盈余管理的动因(一)奖金动因赫雷(Hearly,1985)发表了一片名为《奖金计划对会计决策的影响》(The Effect of Bonus Schemes On Accounting Decision)的文章对盈余管理的动因进行了著名的实证研究。
第五章 营运资金管理与盈余管理

⑵经济订货量
①基本模型 经济订货量 Q*
最佳订货周期
*
2 KD Kc
最佳订货次数
2K DK c
N*
DK c 2K
T 360
经济订货量占用资金 I * KD ) U (
2Kc
最低存货总成本 TC* 2KDKc ②存货边补充边消耗情况下的经济订货量 ③数量折扣条件下的经济订货量 ④考虑安全储备量的经济订货量
易出现过度增长。——因其更需要事先垫付营运资金(较
高的存货、应收帐款)。
10
营运资金管理的基本要求
营运资金管理重点:保证企业能够按时按量地 偿付各种到期债务,为企业的日常生产经营活动提 供足够的资金,使企业不致出现资金调度失衡、资 金运用捉襟见肘的窘境。 一般做法:
1、合理确定企业营运资金的占用数量。——经营状况、 环境、经验。 2、合理确定短期资金的来源构成。——资金收支状况, 偿债能力。 3、加快资金周转,提高资金的利用效果。——加速存货 周转,缩短应收帐款周期(注意对销售额的影响),延长应
付帐款付款周期(注意对企业偿债信誉的影响)。
11
二、流动资产种类与特征
现金 短期有价证券 应收帐款 存货
12
(一)现金
包括库存现金与银行存款。是企业现实支付
能力与偿债能力的体现。 使用方便、快捷,但会发生保管费用(现 金保管箱租赁费,银行存款虽有少量利息,但 支付受到一定限制)。
持有则形成资源浪费,不持有则可能造成
=21÷180×365 =43;
应收帐款周转期 =(应收帐款平均余额÷销售收入)×365 =47÷250×365 =69; 应付帐款周转期 =(应付帐款平均余额÷原材料采购量)×365 =14÷67×365 =76。 生产经营周期=(67+20 +43 )+69 =199 营运资金周转期 =199-76=123(天)
盈余管理和盈利质量外文文献及翻译

盈余管理和盈利质量外文文献及翻译摘要从犯罪现场调查员的视角来看盈余管理的检测,启蒙了早期对盈余管理的研究和它的近亲:盈利质量。
Ball和Shivakumar的著作(2008在会计和经济学杂志上出版的《首次公开发行时的盈利质量》)和Teoh et al .的著作(1998在金融杂志53期上刊登的《盈利管理和首次公开发行后的市场表现》)被用来阐释将犯罪现场调查的七个部分应用于盈利管理的研究。
关键词:市场效率盈余管理盈利质量会计欺诈1、引言在诸多会计和金融的研究课题中,可能没有比盈余管理更具有刺激性的议题。
为什么?我认为这是因为这个主题明确涉及了潜在的不法行为、恶作剧、冲突、间谍活动以及一种神秘感。
正如Healy和Wahlen在1999年(Schipper在1989也下过类似的定义)定义道:“盈余管理的发生是在管理者针对财务报表和交易建立,运用判断力来改变财务报告之时。
盈余管理要么会在公司潜在的经营表现上误导一些利益相关者,要么影响合同结果,这取决于会计报告数字。
”简而言之,有人做伤害别人的事情。
审计人员、监管机构、投资者和研究者们试图找到这些违法者并解开这个谜团,而这个谜团可能会演变成涉及欺诈(或犯罪,在此使用解决犯罪谜团的隐喻)的事件。
如果我们将盈余管理看成是一个潜在的欺诈性(犯罪性)活动,那么我们可以在利用比解决神秘谋杀案的福尔摩斯,或犯罪现场调查(CSI)更现代的条件下,考虑对盈余管理的探查。
这样的调查涉及到以下七个要素:一场犯罪是否已经实施,嫌疑人的责任,使用的凶器,犯罪活动的受害者,犯罪的动机,开展行动的机会和替代性解释。
替代性解释是指除了欺诈或犯罪活动,整个事件的起因。
这个起因能够证实在目击证据的基础上得出欺诈或犯罪的结论将是错误的。
我在讨论破解盈余管理的谜团的各种要素时,所举的例子主要来自Ball和Shivakumar(2008)和Teoh et al.(1998)。
(这些要素显然是相互关联的,以下的讨论中也有一些不可避免的重复)。
盈余管理(Earning Management)就是企业管理

盈余管理(Earning Management)就是企业管理盈余管理。
盈余管理就是企业管理当局在遵循会计准则的基础上。
通过对企业对外报告的会计收益信息进行控制或调整。
以达到主体自身利益最大化的行为。
中文名,盈余管理。
目的,达到主体自身利益最大化的行为。
基础,企业管理当局在遵循会计准则。
广泛研究,国外经济学和会计学。
概念。
盈余管理是目前国外经济学和会计学广泛研究的课题。
对盈余管理的概念会计学界存在着诸多不同意见。
从以下两个权威性的定义可以看出盈余管理的基本涵义。
一是美国会计学家斯考特认为。
盈余管理是指"在GAAP允许的范围内。
通过对会计政策的选择使经营者自身利益或企业市场价值达到最大化的行为。
另一方面是美国会计学家凯瑟琳·雪珀认为。
盈余管理实际上是企业管理人员通过有目的地控制对外财务报告过程。
以获取某些私人利益的"披露管理"。
根据以上两个权威性的定义。
可以看出。
盈余管理主要具备这样一些涵义:第一。
盈余管理的主体是企业管理当局。
它包括经理人员和董事会。
尽管经理人员和董事会进行盈余管理的动机并不完全一致。
但他们对企业会计政策和对外报告盈余都有重大影响。
企业盈余信息的披露由他们各自作用的合力所决定。
第二。
盈余管理的客体是企业对外报告的盈余信息%20。
在雪珀的定义中。
盈余管理不仅仅指对会计收益的调整和控制。
而且包括对其他会计信息的披露的管理。
但是对会计收益以外的财务数据的操纵并不具有普遍的意义。
它所具有的经济后果相对而言要小得多。
如果将其纳入盈余管理的范畴反而会影响对盈余管理本质的把握。
第三。
盈余管理的方法是在GAAP允许的范围内综合运用会计和非会计手段来实现对会计收益的控制和调整。
它主要包括会计政策的选用。
应计项目的管理。
交易时间的改变。
交易的创造等。
第四。
盈余管理的目的是盈余管理主体自身利益的最大化。
其中又包括管理人员自身利益的最大化和董事会成员所代表的股东利益的最大化。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
外文文献翻译原文:Quarterly Earnings Patterns and Earnings Management Empirical evidence suggests that firms manage earnings to avoid reporting losses or earnings decreases or to meet analysts' expectations. If firms manage earnings to meet or beat a target number, adjustments to earnings are likely to be made when the excess or shortfall from the target becomes known. Hence, the timing of manipulation is likely to be a critical distinguishing feature that could provide a means to detect such target management behavior. Consistent with this view, investment experts caution investors to watch out for late-year surges in revenues and earnings, which they regard as telltale signs of earnings manipulation. Articles in the business press dating back to the 1990s cite cases of technology companies reporting disproportionate increases in revenues and earnings in the fourth quarter. In this paper, we exploit the timing constraint on a firm's ability to manage to a target and examine whether the pattern of quarterly earnings can provide an indication of potential earnings management.Our focus on potential earnings management in the fourth quarter implicitly suggests that managers have greater incentives to manage annual rather than quarterly results. In support of our assumption, most accounting-based performance measures used in bonus and compensation schemes are based on audited annual earnings. Also, if capital market participants perceive audited annual earnings as more credible than interim earnings, they may place a higher value on annual earnings, providing managers with stronger incentives to manipulate annual earnings. Thus, although managers may have greater opportunities to manipulate interim earnings because of the absence of an independent audit, their incentives to manage earnings in interim quarters may be weaker.The vast literature on earnings management relies on an accrual expectation model to estimate abnormal or discretionary accruals. Empirical studies typically identify a sample for which the direction of earnings management is predicted and then test whether the abnormal accruals of the sample suspected of earnings management are higher or lower than some benchmark. The inherent difficulty in modeling accruals leads to model misspecification and low power tests resulting in serious inference problems. Thus, thereappears to be a need to explore alternative approaches to detect earnings management.If quarterly earnings reversals indeed reflect earnings management behavior, this approach can potentially provide us with an alternative detection tool. Examining earnings patterns of a firm over time avoids the specification of expected (or normal) accruals. This quarterly time-series approach uses a firm as its own control and can be used to detect earnings management by any firm, including those where the motivation to manage is not obvious. Of course, a limitation of this approach is that it is useful only in detecting cases where firms time the earnings management effort.We test whether the observed frequency of fourth-quarter reversals is significantly higher than expected. We use a sequence of four quarters with randomly designated interim and fourth quarters and different sequences of four quarters ending in a quarter other than the fiscal fourth quarter as alternative benchmarks for the expected frequency of reversals. On the basis of these benchmarks, we find that the occurrence of reversals in the fiscal fourth quarter is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.In summary, our results indicate that reversals of fourth-quarter earnings occur in a significant percentage of firms. Whether this reversal phenomenon is indeed a manifestation of earnings management behavior is difficult to determine definitively. Our goal is not to provide incontrovertible evidence of earnings management by the reversal firms but to test the earnings management hypothesis along a number of dimensions. Numerous indicators support our hypothesis that firms with reversals are more likely than others to have managed their earnings. Our results focus on the sample average and hence do not imply that all firms in the reversal samples engage in earnings management. The weight of our evidence raises a strong suspicion that, on average, fourth-quarter reversals reflect earnings management behavior.Overall, our paper contributes to the earnings management literature in general and has specific implications for the target-meeting or -beating literature. Our findings suggest that investors should view late-year changes in general and fourth-quarter earnings reversals in particular with caution. On the basis of our evidence, the fourth-quarter reversal pattern can be used as a heuristic that triggers an inquiry into potential earnings management in conjunction with other indicators, such as discretionary accruals or meeting or beating earnings targets.Incentives to manage annual rather than interim quarters' earnings may be stronger for several reasons. Most bonus and compensation plans based on accounting performance rely on audited annual results rather than not audited quarterly results. Such remuneration schemes provide incentives for managers to manipulate fiscal-year income to achieve preset targets in order to maximize their compensation. The firm's standing in relation to these targets will likely be most clearly apparent in the fourth quarter, thus providing managers with the strongest incentive to manage earnings in the fourth quarter. Furthermore, audited annual earnings may have higher valuation implications if investors attach greater credibility to them relative to interim earnings, providing managers with stronger incentives to manipulate annual earnings.Prior empirical studies provide indirect evidence consistent with managers having stronger incentives to manage earnings at the fiscal year-end. Several of these studies examine the market response to earnings announcements for a broad cross-section of firms and infer whether firms manage earnings differentially across interim and fourth quarters. For example, Kross and Schroeder (1989) and Salamon and Stober (1994) find that the market's reaction to an earnings surprise is lower in the fourth quarter relative to interim quarters. Both studies attribute their findings to earnings management at the fiscal year-end or to the settling up of interim accruals in the fourth quarter.Other empirical studies examine properties of earnings distributions and draw inferences about potential earnings management in the fourth quarter. Jeter and Shivakumar (1999) examine squared abnormal accruals of interim versus fourth quarters and find that the evidence of potential earnings management is greater in the fourth quarter than in interim quarters. Also, the findings of Degeorge, Patel, and Zeckhauser (1999) suggest that the special saliency of annual reports creates additional incentives to manipulate earnings to cross an annual threshold (relative to quarterly thresholds) as reflected by the variation in fourth-quarter earnings. Similarly, Jacob and Jorgensen (2007) show the managers' attempts to avoid losses (earnings decreases), reflected by the discontinuity in the distributions of fiscal-year earnings (earnings changes) at zero, are not observable in annual periods ending in each of the first three fiscal quarters of a year.Unlike prior studies, we do not infer that earnings management occurs on average in the general population of firms. In contrast, we rely on these studies' findings, whichsuggest that earnings management is more likely to occur at fiscal year-end, and examine the pattern of quarterly earnings to identify potential earnings managers who may have timed their efforts to manage annual earnings in the fourth quarter. To corroborate that our identified sample firms are in fact managing earnings, we examine these firms on a number of dimensions that have been offered by prior research as indicators of earnings management.We explore a number of alternative explanations for the fourth-quarter reversal phenomenon. First, it is possible that the reversals are merely incidental and arise as a consequence of the firm's operating and investing decisions. Second, reversal of the sign of earnings change in the fourth quarter relative to interim quarters may be the result of a natural mean-reversion of quarterly earnings. Third, the reversals may be due to a change in the "settling up" of interim accruals in the fourth quarter. Fourth, the reversals may result from earnings management in interim quarters and not in the fourth quarter. We examine the validity of these competing explanations for each of our tests.Recent evidence indicates that managers may also manipulate real activities to avoid reporting annual losses (see Roychowdhury 2006). These activities could include boosting annual sales by offering substantial price discounts or reduction of discretionary expenditures such as plant maintenance and research and development. Unlike accruals manipulation, management of real activities has an effect on the firm's cash flows. Real operating activities are, however, more difficult and costly to manipulate. Thus, although we do not rule out management of operating cash flows, we expect the higher (lower) fourth-quarter earnings of the NP (PN) sample to result mostly from accruals rather than from CFOs.Because earnings management is a manipulation of the timing of revenue and expense recognition, fourth-quarter accrual changes of the reversal samples are expected to be negatively correlated with accrual changes of the immediately following quarters. This follows because inflated (deflated) accruals in one period must be offset by lower (higher) accruals in subsequent periods. Dechow (1994) and Dechow, Kothari, and Watts (1998) show that change in accruals of year t is negatively correlated with change in accruals of year t - 1. If this negative serial correlation in annual accrual changes also holds for quarterly accrual changes, we expect the reversal samples to exhibit this patternsimply because of the accrual reversal property. Hence, we test whether the negative correlation between changes in fourth-quarter accruals and changes in accruals of subsequent quarters is stronger for the reversal samples relative to the control samples. Stronger negative serial correlation in accruals will argue against the alternate hypothesis that the reversal pattern is merely reflecting mean reversion in accruals. If the fourth-quarter reversal occurs because accruals begin to revert to the mean in the fourth quarter, then the trend would continue until they converge to a steady state and we would not expect a strong negative serial correlation between the fourth and subsequent quarters' accruals.We provide evidence on these numerous dimensions to examine whether the reversals reflect earnings management behavior. Our results should be interpreted not as implying that all firms in the reversal samples engaged in earnings management, but as suggestive evidence that these firms are more likely than others to have managed their earnings. We intend for our results to shed light on whether these earnings reversal patterns are suspicious and warrant further investigation.If the earnings reversal pattern reflects accruals manipulation, then we expect other indicators, such as the change in accruals, magnitude of discretionary accruals, and magnitude of special items, to corroborate the higher likelihood of earnings management in the reversal samples relative to the control samples. Because conclusive evidence of earnings management is difficult to provide, we show contrasts between the reversal and control samples on several different dimensions, which may collectively suggest that fourth-quarter reversals reflect efforts to manage earnings.The significant overlap of the samples of firms reporting small profits or small EPS increases with the reversal samples provides an interesting insight. Because much attention has been paid to firms that meet or just beat earnings targets as potential earnings managers, our result sheds light on the manner in which these firms achieve these annual targets. On the basis of the observed kink in earnings distributions at zero, the presumption in previous studies is that firms that meet or just beat earnings targets are likely to have managed earnings upward to avoid reporting a loss or an earnings decrease. Consistent with this belief, we find that a significant number of these firms manage earnings upward in the fourth quarter to offset their poor performance in interim quarters(NP sample). The more intriguing finding that is not adequately considered by prior research is that about one-fourth of the firms that meet or just beat earnings targets appear to smooth annual earnings by managing earnings downward in the fourth quarter (PN sample). This could perhaps explain the finding of Dechow et al. 2003 that small profit and small loss firms have about the same level of discretionary accruals.In conclusion, the paper contributes by establishing that certain intra-year earnings patterns should be viewed with suspicion. From a practical perspective, we propose that fourth-quarter earnings reversals should trigger further investigation into a company's efforts to manage earnings. Because our large-sample analysis can only provide on-average evidence, we recommend that analysts and investors use this approach in conjunction with other indicators of earnings management, such as the direction and size of discretionary accruals and meeting or beating targets.Resource: SOMNATH DAS, PERVIN K. SHROFF, HAIWEN ZHANG.Quarterly Earnings Patterns and Earnings Management.Contemporary Accounting Research, 2009: P797-831.译文:季度收入模式和盈余管理实证研究表明,公司盈余管理以避免报告损失或收入减少还是为了满足分析师的预期。