Pro forma disclosure and investor sophistication: External validation of experimental evidence using archival data

Insights on how ordinary, less-sophisticated investors interpret and process management-issued pro forma earnings numbers are useful to regulators because of concerns that pro forma disclosures are misleading to ordinary investors. Two recent experimental studies [Frederickson, J. R., & Miller, J. S. (2004). The effects of pro forma earnings disclosures on analysts’ and nonprofessional investors’ equity valuation judgments. The Accounting Review, 79(3), 667–686; Elliott, W. B. (2006). Are investors influenced by pro forma emphasis and reconciliations in earnings announcements? The Accounting Review, 81(1), 113–133] find that the existence of a pro forma number in the earnings press release as well as the relative placement of the pro forma and GAAP earnings figures within the press release affect the judgments of less-sophisticated investors but not those of more-sophisticated investors. Experimental and archival methodologies complement one another and results that persist in both settings are likely to be robust to both internal and external validity concerns. Therefore, we complement experimental evidence using trade-size-based proxies constructed from intraday transactions data to distinguish the trading activities of less-sophisticated investors from more-sophisticated investors. Our results suggest that less-sophisticated investors rely significantly more on quarterly earnings press releases that include a pro forma number than on those that do not, while more-sophisticated investors exhibit the opposite behavior. This result is consistent with Frederickson and Miller’s experimental evidence. Further, consistent with Elliott’s results, we find that less-sophisticated investors rely more on the pro forma figure when it is placed before the GAAP earnings number in the press release, while more-sophisticated investors’ trading behavior is unaffected by the relative placement of the two earnings metrics. We conclude that the existence of a pro forma number as well as its strategic placement in the press release generally affect the judgments of less-sophisticated (but not more-sophisticated) investors and these inferences are robust because they persist in both experimental and archival settings.     

Disclosure strategies among S&P 500 firms: Evidence on the disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures and financial statements in earnings press releases

This paper examines the prominence of non-GAAP financial measures in press releases, testing whether managers emphasize these adjusted performance measures relative to GAAP numbers in four different settings where their disclosure helps managers reach strategic earnings benchmarks on a pro forma basis when they would otherwise fall short using GAAP numbers. Moreover, this research investigates the information content of disclosures reconciling non-GAAP to GAAP earnings (and other financial statements). The data is hand collected from quarterly earnings press releases of a sample of S&P 500 firms during the 2001–2003 period. In this particular sample, the disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures is frequent. The results suggest that managers strategically give more prominence to non-GAAP measures than to GAAP figures when the GAAP earnings number falls short of a benchmark but the non-GAAP earnings number does not. This disclosure strategy may influence the perception of the firm's financial results. Furthermore, the results suggest that both the reconciliation and the non-GAAP income statement contain information useful for users.     

The role of reconciliation quality in limiting mispricing of non-GAAP earnings announcements by EURO STOXX firms

This empirical study investigates the relationship between the market mispricing of pro forma earnings announcements and the degree to which pro forma earnings are quantitatively reconciled with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) earnings. For a sample of EURO STOXX Fixed Index companies we find evidence of positive abnormal returns related to pro forma earnings disclosures, and, upon further analyses, conclude that this evidence is generally more consistent with the notion of market mispricing than omitted risk factors. Moreover, when reconciliation quality is controlled, market mispricing is found to be prevalent and pronounced only for low quality reconciliations. This finding suggests that reconciliation is important in reducing market mispricing.     

Pro forma disclosures,audit fees,and auditor resignations

The disclosure of non-GAAP (pro forma) earnings numbers by managers in the post-SOX era continues to attract attention from regulators, media, and researchers. However, there is limited empirical evidence on how auditors view clients that emphasize pro forma earnings over GAAP earnings. We study the extent to which audit fees and auditor resignations are associated with opportunistic non-GAAP disclosures. We find that during the pre-SOX period, optimistic pro forma differences, measured using either IBES actual earnings or hand-collected pro forma earnings, are associated with higher audit fees and a higher likelihood of auditor resignations. Additional results indicate that auditors seem to be more concerned with non-GAAP earnings disclosures in the post-SOX period.     

VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE PRACTICES: THE USE OF PRO FORMA REPORTING

This article looks at how U.S. managers supplement GAAP earnings with pro forma reporting. Pro forma measures, which are not audited, are typically determined through an adjustment to GAAP-based earnings. For example, a manager may choose to present an alternative to GAAP earnings that excludes period write-offs and one-time restructuring charges in order to present a more value-relevant picture of the company's performance.
The authors find that 77% of S&P 500 companies report pro forma results, and that pro forma measures are generally given greater prominence than GAAP earnings in corporate press releases. Based on the evidence, U.S. managers are using pro forma reporting strategically to affect investor perception of corporate performance. The SEC has recently issued rules to ensure that pro forma disclosure is not misleading. The authors present some guidelines on voluntary disclosure that might help forestall further regulation and preserve the ability to pursue this potentially informative practice.     

Press Release Disclosure of ‘Pro Forma’ Earnings Metrics by Large German Corporations – Empirical Evidence and Regulatory Recommendations

This paper is set against the background of recent regulatory action and standard-setting activities pertaining to the disclosure of so-called ‘pro forma’ earnings. For a sample of large corporations listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, I individually analyze quarterly earnings announcements published for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Given voiced concern about the potential of pro forma metrics to misrepresent firm performance and thus to potentially mislead investors, research questions pertain to the use, the calculation and the presentation of pro forma earnings, and the impact of recent recommendations issued by European securities commissions. The results indicate that firms make extensive use of so-called ‘EB’ (earnings before) metrics and, more importantly, of pure non-GAAP performance measures, both in terms of frequency and reporting emphasis. The transparency of adjustments to GAAP earnings turns out to be low. Year-to-year analysis suggests that recent recommendations by European securities regulators have had no discernible impact on these disclosure patterns. Taken together, this evidence suggests that regulatory concern may be warranted. At the same time, it points out the need for more research into the determinants and the investor reception of pro forma earnings disclosures in EU jurisdictions.     

The Impact of the Disclosure of Non‐GAAP Earnings in Australian Annual Reports on Non‐Sophisticated Users

The disclosure of non‐GAAP earnings in Australian annual reports has risen steadily in recent years. These non‐statutory earnings measures are generally disclosed in the unaudited section of the annual report and are not consistent with statutory profit as defined under generally accepted Australian accounting standards (GAAP). Recent research conducted in the United States (US) has provided evidence that non‐sophisticated investor decisions are influenced by the presence and prominence of non‐GAAP earnings information. Further evidence suggests that investor perception changed after non‐GAAP earnings disclosures became subject to regulation in that jurisdiction. Australia has high investor participation rates by international standards, including investors operating self‐managed superannuation funds, resulting in a significant number of active individual investors. This study employs an experimental design to investigate the impact on non‐sophisticated investors of the reporting of non‐GAAP earnings information in addition to GAAP earnings information in Australian annual reports. The results of this study show a positive association between the prominent disclosure of non‐GAAP earnings information and non‐sophisticated investor reliance on this information. These results provide important evidence to Australian regulators as these narrative disclosures are not subject to regulation, in contrast to the US where mandatory regulation has been in place since 2003.     

Non‐GAAP Earnings Disclosure in Loss Firms

This study examines the incremental information in loss firms’ non‐GAAP earnings disclosures relative to GAAP earnings. Using a large sample obtained through textual analysis and hand‐collection, we posit and find that loss firms’ non‐GAAP earnings exclusions offset the low informativeness of GAAP losses for forecasting and valuation. Loss firms’ non‐GAAP earnings are highly predictive of future performance and are valued by investors, while the expenses excluded from GAAP earnings are not. Additional tests suggest that loss firms disclosing non‐GAAP profits have significantly better future performance than GAAP‐only loss firms and are not overvalued by investors. Comparing non‐GAAP earnings of profitable firms to those of loss firms, we find that loss firms’ non‐GAAP metrics are significantly more predictive and less strategic. We conclude that non‐GAAP earnings disclosures are particularly informative about loss firms and help investors disaggregate losses into components that have differential implications for forecasting and valuation.     

Earnings changes associated with relaxing the reconciliation requirement in non-U.S. firms’ SEC filings

We investigate the changes in earnings information content and earnings attributes for non-U.S. firms listed in U.S. equity markets following the 2007 relaxation of the SEC requirement to reconcile IFRS earnings and stockholders’ equity to U.S. GAAP in annual regulatory filings. We analyze a sample of non-U.S. firms listed on U.S. exchanges from 2005 to 2008 that use IFRS, and compare them to non-U.S. firms that continue to use domestic GAAP or U.S. GAAP. Prior literature finds no changes in informativeness following the regulatory change for IFRS-using firms. However, when we partition the IFRS-using firms into two groups based on their history of providing reconciliation information, we find that firms which previously provided more information about the differences between their reporting GAAP and U.S. GAAP had significant increases in the information content of their earnings. In contrast, there is no change in earnings informativeness for firms that provided less informative reconciliations. We regard the reconciliation informativeness as a proxy for firms’ efforts to provide more informative disclosures, which is driven by their disclosure incentives. We also document that the change in the information content of earnings for more informative reconcilers was contemporaneous with a change in earnings attributes for these firms. Consistent with no change in earnings informativeness for less informative reconcilers, there is little change in their earnings attributes. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating disclosure incentives when examining the consequences of a regulatory change.     

The relation between non-GAAP earnings and accounting restatements: Evidence after regulation G

Scholarly findings on whether disclosure of Non-GAAP earnings is informative or opportunistic are inconsistent. Since the 2003 implementation of Regulation G, investors can view management's process of adjusting from GAAP earnings to Non-GAAP earnings. This study investigates the information content of Non-GAAP earnings in the context of restatements. The hypotheses of this study are based on the following two propositions. First, the informativeness of Non-GAAP earnings is determined by the nature of items excluded from GAAP earnings to derive Non-GAAP earnings (either nonrecurring special items or recurring exclusions). Second, restatements can be used to distinguish between informative and opportunistic Non-GAAP earnings disclosures. My results show that firms with restatements, especially fraud or core earnings restatements, exhibit greater relative use of Non-GAAP earnings disclosures that adjust GAAP earnings for positive other exclusions (recurring expenses). By contrast, disclosures of Non-GAAP earnings derived by excluding nonrecurring expenses (special items) from GAAP earnings are not associated with restatements.     

US Managers' Use of 'Pro Forma' Adjustments to Meet Strategic Earnings Targets

Abstract:  The practice of reporting manager-adjusted 'pro forma' earnings numbers in quarterly earnings press releases has attracted considerable attention in recent years in the United States. Prior research suggests that while some managers report these adjusted numbers to better reflect core earnings, others may use these earnings adjustments to meet strategic earnings targets on a pro forma basis when they fall short based on GAAP reporting standards. Assuming the latter motivation could potentially mislead investors, the difficulty lies in distinguishing the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys.' Using hand-collected pro forma earnings data, we investigate the extent to which different types of earnings adjustments affect the spread between pro forma earnings and GAAP earnings from continuing operations. Moreover, we investigate which types of adjustments managers use to meet strategic earnings targets. In addition to the exclusion of one-time items like restructuring charges, the results indicate that managers often exclude recurring expenses such as depreciation, research and development, and stock-based compensation to meet these strategic targets. The exclusion of recurring items is especially indicative of aggressive pro forma reporting. Finally, we find that firms that report adjusted earnings numbers only sporadically are more likely than firms that adjust earnings figures on a regular basis to use pro forma reporting to achieve strategic earnings targets by excluding recurring items.     

GAAP versus The Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two Alternative Definitions of Earnings

Managers, security analysts, investors, and the press rely increasingly on modified definitions of GAAP net income, known by such names as "operating" and "pro forma" earnings. We document this phenomenon and discuss competing explanations for the recent rise in the use of such modified earnings numbers and implications for the interpretation of related accounting research. Our results show that over the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in the frequency and magnitude of cases where "GAAP" and "Street" earnings differ. Further, there is a very strong bias toward the reporting of a Street earnings number that exceeds the GAAP earnings number. We also show that the market response to the Street earnings number has displaced GAAP earnings as a primary determinant of stock prices. Finally, through an analysis of earnings releases, we show that management has taken a proactive role in defining and emphasizing the Street number when communicating to analysts and investors.     

The valuation impact of reconciling pro forma earnings to GAAP earnings

Regulation G requires all companies to quantitatively reconcile pro forma earnings with GAAP earnings. This paper provides three findings related to the impact of reconciliations on mispricing of pro forma earnings. First, prior to Reg G, we find that mispricing of pro forma earnings is limited to firms with low reconciliation quality. There is no evidence of mispricing for firms with high reconciliation quality. Second, we find no evidence of mispricing after Reg G. Third, there is a cross-Reg G reduction of mispricing for firms whose reconciliation quality improves, and there continues to be no mispricing for firms that have high reconciliation quality both before and after Reg G. Together, our results support the notion that better reconciliations reduce the extent of mispricing.     

Level of business insights in the MD&A and nonprofessional investors' judgments

This study examines how the level of business insights in a firm's MD&A interacts with its current financial performance to influence nonprofessional investors' judgments. Following the observations and guidance of the ASIC and SEC to define low‐and high‐insight MD&A, this study finds that low‐insight MD&A, when provided for a negative earnings surprise, increases investors’ judgments of the negative earnings persistence and hurts management reputation more than if no MD&A had been provided. High‐insight MD&A, when including a plausible external attribution, increases investors’ judgments of management reputation in the negative earnings surprise condition and decreases investors’ judgments of positive earnings persistence.     

Disclosure of GAAP line items in earnings announcements

We provide new evidence on the disclosure in earnings announcements of financial statement line items prepared under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). First, we investigate the circumstances that might provide disincentives generally for GAAP line item disclosures. We find that managers who regularly intervene in the earnings reporting process limit disclosures at the aggregate level and in each of the financial statements so as to more effectively guide investor attention to summary financial information. Specifically, this disclosure behavior obtains when managers habitually cater to market expectations, engage in income smoothing, or use discretionary accruals to improve earnings informativeness. Second, we predict and find that the specific GAAP line items that firms choose to disclose are determined by the differential informational demands of their economic environment, consistent with incentives to facilitate investor valuation. However, these valuation-related disclosure incentives are muted when managers habitually intervene in the earnings reporting process.     

The effect of voluntary clawback adoption on non-GAAP reporting

We examine the effect of voluntary adoption of clawback provisions on non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Prior literature documents that voluntary clawback adoption improves financial reporting quality by increasing the costs of misstating GAAP earnings. However, managers may respond to perceptions of reduced discretion over GAAP reporting by increasing their reliance on non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Using a propensity score matched sample, we find that non-GAAP earnings disclosure frequency increases and non-GAAP exclusion quality decreases after clawback adoption, consistent with a more opportunistic use of non-GAAP reporting. Additional cross-sectional tests help support this interpretation.     

Recognition versus Disclosure of Stock Option Compensation: An Analysis of Judgements and Decisions of Nonprofessional Investors*/CONSTATER OU PRÉSENTER PAR VOIE DE NOTE LA RÉMUNÉRATION SOUS FORME D'OPTIONS D'ACHAT D'ACTIONS: UNE ANALYSE DES JUGEMENTS ET DES DÉCISIONS DES INVESTISSEURS NON PROFESSIONNELS

Given the importance of stock options in the aggregate compensation of chief executive officers and other firm employees in the 1990s and early 2000s, the International Accounting Standards Board issued an International Financial Reporting Standard on stock‐based payments on February 19, 2004, requiring that all share‐based payment transactions be recognized at fair value in entities' financial statements. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Accounting Standards Board had already agreed to this principle and amended section 3870 of the CICA Handbook (stock‐based compensation) for financial periods beginning on or after January 1, 2004, making Canada the first major jurisdiction to require all public companies to expense employee stock‐based compensation awards. The revised section eliminated the possibility of disclosing pro forma net income and earnings per share only by way of a note. This research, conducted as a between‐subjects experiment with executive MBA students as nonprofessional investors, examines whether changes in the way stock option compensation is reported (recognition as an expense in the income statement or note disclosure of pro forma net income and earnings per share) affect financial statement users' judgements and investment decisions. Our results indicate that, consistent with the functional fixation hypothesis, the reporting method does indeed significantly influence subjects' judgement of the expected stock price direction, but has no material influence on their investment decisions.     

Effect of foreign GAAP earnings and Form 20-F reconciliations on revisions of analysts' forecasts

A controversial area of U.S. securities regulations involves the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) financial reporting requirements for foreign firms, specifically, the necessity of providing a quantitative reconciliation to U.S. GAAP (Form 20-F). The results of earnings-returns research to date indicate that the release of foreign GAAP earnings provides important information. However, the results of earnings-returns studies using reconciled information are mixed. Instead of using an earnings-returns methodology adopted in prior research, this study utilizes analysts' revisions as a market indicator of the effect of information released in foreign GAAP earnings and the reconciled information in Form 20-F. Additionally, the study investigates the influence of four firm-specific variables in the firm's information environment—similarities of accounting systems, analyst following, difference between reconciled earnings and foreign GAAP earnings, and dispersion of analysts' expectations—on positive abnormal revision activities of financial analysts at the time of filing Form 20-F.The results indicate that the release of foreign GAAP earnings (at earnings announcement dates) and reconciled information (at the time of filing Form 20-F) contains relevant information as measured by analysts' revisions. Further, variables representing analyst following, change in reconciled earnings, and dispersion of analysts' expectations are significant in explaining the variation observed in positive abnormal revisions.     

Accounting and Valuation: How Helpful Are Recent Accounting Rule Changes?

The longstanding debate over the proper definition of “earnings”—whether investors when setting stock prices focus primarily on GAAP earnings or other measures like operating cash flow—is both misguided and theoretically unresolvable. The biggest problem faced by investors in evaluating earnings reports is not their inability to understand the effects of the different accounting methods companies use when aggregating accounting line items into reported net income. More challenging, and more critical to the investment process, is getting complete and reliable information about the line items themselves. The authors' underlying premise is that investors, when provided sufficient information about these “components” of earnings, can combine or reconfigure them in whatever way they find most useful. But without sufficient and reliable information about the individual line items, investors will find it difficult to understand how earnings are generated and thus to produce the forecast of future earnings necessary to value a company. In the past few years, there have been significant rule changes in accounting for employee options, derivatives, and special purposes entities. The authors evaluate the extent to which the new rules encourage disclosures that are helpful from a valuation perspective. Although there has been some progress, financial reporting in each of the three areas continues to fall well short of providing the complete, disaggregated data required to value a firm with confidence.     

The effect of investor sophistication on the influence of nonfinancial performance indicators on investors’ judgments

This paper presents an experiment that examines how enhanced disclosure of nonfinancial performance indicators affects the stock‐price estimates of nonprofessional and professional investors. Participants were provided with a case study containing excerpts from a hypothetical company’s annual report. The experiment was a 2 (nonprofessional and professional) × 3 (positive nonfinancial performance indicators, negative nonfinancial performance indicators, and financial information only) between‐subjects design. Consistent with conservatism, the nonprofessional investors underreacted in their stock‐price estimates to the positive nonfinancial disclosures, compared with professional investors with task‐specific knowledge. The results from this study suggest that the value of enhanced disclosure of this type may not flow equally to all users of financial reports, if conservatism, and lack of task‐specific knowledge, adversely affect their decision‐making.