Regulatory changes in the electric utility industry: Investigation of effects on shareholder wealth

In 1992, the regulatory environment for electric utilities changed dramatically with enactment of the Energy Policy Act, mandating increased competition in this formerly monopolistic industry. The results of our study suggest that these regulatory changes in the electric utility industry and the opening of transmission lines to outsiders had negative and significant effects on stock values for the overall sample of firms examined. The basic results indicate that the movement toward greater competition dissipates economic rents associated with the previously held monopolistic situations. Multivariate analysis indicates that firms with greater levels of nuclear assets and higher earnings per dollar of assets prior to the regulatory actions suffered greater negative abnormal returns than other firms in the sample. Additionally, firms in a more competitive environment prior to regulatory changes had less negative abnormal returns. Results also show utility firms are riskier after deregulation with an increase in market risk of 48.88% and in firm specific risk of 23.66%. Overall, it appears that, as with other deregulation of natural monopolies in the US, increased competition will benefit some producers, harm other producers and generally dissipate economic rents to consumers.     

Is the accrual anomaly robust to firm-level analysis?

This study investigates whether firm-level accrual mispricing exists and if such mispricing is persistent. Our results show both under and overpricing of accruals that persevere. Specifically, we show that a trading strategy going a dollar long (short) in underpriced (overpriced) accrual firms yields significant abnormal returns in most years investigated. We examine whether firm characteristics such as size, analyst following and real activities management can explain why some firms are mispriced and others not. Our findings show that firm-level mispricing differs from that documented at the country-level. Whilst the country-level anomaly seems to have diminished; the firm-level accrual anomaly remains.     

Risk,Mispricing, and Value Investing

We evaluate the stock return performance of a modified version of the book-to-market strategy and its implications for market efficiency. If the previously documented superior stock return of the book-to-market strategy represents mispricing, its performance should be improved by excluding fairly valued firms with extreme book-to-market ratios. To attain this, we classify stocks as value or glamour on book-to-market ratios and accounting accruals jointly. This joint classification is likely to exclude stocks with extreme book-to-market ratios due to mismeasured accounting book values reflecting limitations underlying the accounting system. Using both 12-month buy-and-hold returns and earnings announcement returns, our results show that this joint classification generates substantially higher portfolio returns in the post-portfolio-formation year than the book-to-market classification alone with no evidence of increased risk. In addition, this superior stock return performance is more pronounced among firms held primarily by small (unsophisticated) investors and followed less closely by market participants (stock price <$10). Finally, and most importantly, financial analysts are overly optimistic (pessimistic) about earnings of glamour (value) stock, and for a subset of firms identified as overvalued by our strategy, the earnings announcement raw return, as well as abnormal return, is negative. These last results are particularly important because it is hard to envision a model consistent with rational investors holding risky stocks with predictable negative raw returns for a long period of time rather than holding fT-bills and with financial analysts systematically overestimating the earnings of these stocks while underestimating earnings of stocks that outperform the stock market.     

Changes in Non‐current Assets and in Property,Plant and Equipment and Future Stock Returns: The UK Evidence

We examine the effect of changes in non‐current operating assets (NCOA) and of changes in property, plant and equipment (PPE) on future abnormal stock returns using a sample of 21,549 UK non‐financial firm observations over the 1990–2012 event period. The results from a matching portfolio procedure and 4‐factor regressions indicate that abnormal returns from investing in a portfolio of low‐minus‐high quintile NCOA and PPE change firms are between 5.5% and 6.1%. This negative association is confirmed by cross‐sectional regressions. The economic significance of mispricing seems weaker than in the US and weaker than the mispricing of working capital accruals adjusted for depreciation in the UK. Changes in PPE drive the predictability of share returns with respect to changes in NCOA. There is no significant evidence that return predictability is stronger in less liquid firms. We find two strands of evidence that lend some support to behavioural explanations of predictability through overreaction to investment. On one hand, fundamental information about investment explains one‐third of the predictability of returns while, on the other, predictability is generally not significantly stronger in firms with high operating leverage as a proxy for risk.     

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.     

系统性定价偏误:中国A股盈余公告后的价格漂移研究

行为金融学的研究表明,投资者情绪引起的定价偏误在各支股票之间具有相关性,从而构成市场上的系统性定价偏误。基于2003年6月至2009年6月中国A股月度交易数据,本文考察了系统性定价偏误与盈余公告后漂移(PEAD)之间的关系。研究结果显示,中国股票市场上的PEAD现象可能由系统性定价偏误引致,因此,将捕捉系统性定价偏误的偏误定价因子引入定价模型能够提升模型对于PEAD的解释力。经过对定价模型调整,季度盈余公告后6个月买人持有异常收益在经济及统计意义上不显著。这一方面表明中国股票市场上存在由投资者情绪造成的系统性定价偏误,另一方面也为盈余公告后漂移的产生原因提供了新的解释。     

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.     

The Stock Market and Corporate Investment: A Test of Catering Theory

We test a catering theory describing how stock market mispricingmight influence individual firms' investment decisions. We usediscretionary accruals as our proxy for mispricing. We finda positive relation between abnormal investment and discretionaryaccruals; that abnormal investment is more sensitive to discretionaryaccruals for firms with higher R&D intensity (opaque firms)or share turnover (firms with shorter shareholder horizons);that firms with high abnormal investment subsequently have lowstock returns; and that the larger the relative price premium,the stronger the abnormal return predictability. We show thatpatterns in abnormal returns are stronger for firms with higherR&D intensity or share turnover.     

Excess Returns to R&D-Intensive Firms

Recent studies indicate that both current R&D investment levels and current or recent changes in R&D investment are positively associated with subsequent excess (risk-adjusted) stock returns. The tentative explanation offered for these results is that shares of R&D-intensive firms are mispriced because investors fail to see through earnings distortions caused by conservative accounting for R&D costs. However, an alternative explanation is that conventional controls for risk do not completely capture the riskiness of R&D-intensive firms, causing measured excess returns for these firms to be biased upward. This study provides evidence useful for distinguishing between the mispricing and risk explanations for R&D-related excess returns. Overall, our empirical results suggest that the positive association between R&D investment levels and excess returns is more likely to result from failure to control adequately for risk than from mispricing. On the other hand, our results do not rule out the possibility of a second source of excess returns that are due to mispricing and that are associated with changes in the level of R&D investment.     

Earnings Volatility,Post–Earnings Announcement Drift,and Trading Frictions

We find that lower ex ante earnings volatility leads to higher Post–Earnings Announcement Drift (PEAD). PEAD is a function of both the magnitude of an earnings surprise and its persistence. While prior research has largely investigated market reactions to the magnitude of the earnings surprise, in this study we show that the persistence of the earnings surprise is equally important. A unique feature of the anomalous PEAD returns documented here concerns the association between abnormal returns and trading frictions. Besides demonstrating that firms with lower earnings volatility have higher abnormal returns, we also find that lower earnings volatility firms have lower trading frictions. Taken together, these findings imply that higher abnormal returns are associated with lower trading frictions. We exploit this implication to empirically demonstrate that PEAD returns due to earnings volatility are not concentrated in the firms with the largest trading frictions, which is in contrast to the findings in prior anomaly studies.     

Book–to–Market Equity, Distress Risk, and Stock Returns

This paper examines the relationship between book–to–market equity, distress risk, and stock returns. Among firms with the highest distress risk as proxied by Ohlson's (1980) O–score, the difference in returns between high and low book–to–market securities is more than twice as large as that in other firms. This large return differential cannot be explained by the three–factor model or by differences in economic fundamentals. Consistent with mispricing arguments, firms with high distress risk exhibit the largest return reversals around earnings announcements, and the book–to–market effect is largest in small firms with low analyst coverage.     

Distress risk anomaly and misvaluation

This paper examines the effects of misvaluation on the well-documented negative relation between distress risk and stock returns (distress risk anomaly). Findings indicate that distress risk is negatively related to subsequent stock returns only in the subset of the most overvalued stocks, which is consistent with mispricing explanations provided by prior studies. The distress anomaly disappears after controlling for mispricing effects. Further analysis reveals earnings management to be one possible cause for the overvaluation of highly distressed firms. The results are robust to alternative specifications of distress risk and mispricing measures.     

Market Efficiency Anomalies in Korea: Mispricing vs. Omitted Risk Factors

Using a sample of Korean firms, this paper examines whether abnormal returns to various trading strategies based on publicly available information are consistent with mispricing (market inefficiency) or with the fundamental variables proxying for omitted risk factors. Results of various tests indicate that significant abnormal trading profits observed from DeBondt and Thaler';s (1985) contrarian strategy and Ou and Penman';s (1989) and Holthausen and Larcker';s (1992) Pr-strategies are likely to be a result of market mispricing, while those from trading strategies based on firm size, earnings-to-price ratios, and book-to-price ratios are likely to be a result of omitted risk factors.     

Stock Market Sensitivity to U.K. Firms' Pension Discounting Assumptions

New U.K. pension accounting regulations significantly increase the exposure of the balance sheets of U.K. firms to volatilities in pension fund valuations. We examine whether the abnormal returns of firms that voluntarily used market-based pension discount rates are significantly different from the abnormal returns of industry-matched pair samples of firms that retained traditional cost-based valuation assumptions during the period surrounding the release of the related exposure draft. We also examine the interest rate sensitivity of stock price returns over the 4-year period before and after the announcement date. Consistent with our hypotheses, U.K. stock price returns incorporate the effect of unexpected interest rate changes on sources of pension earnings for firms that voluntarily switched to market-based assumptions but do not incorporate these effects for firms that did not switch. These results suggest that unexpected changes in interest rates have a differential effect on a firm's sources of pension, financial, and core earnings.     

Earnings seasonality,management earnings forecasts and stock returns

We examine whether management earnings forecasts (MEFs) help reduce the stock return seasonality associated with earnings seasonality around earnings announcements (EAs) in Chinese A-share markets. We find that firms in historically low earnings seasons outperform firms in high earnings seasons by 2.1% around MEFs. Firms in low earnings seasons also have higher trading volume and return volatility than their counterparts around EAs and MEFs. MEFs significantly reduce the ability of historical seasonal earnings rankings to negatively predict announcement returns, volume and volatility around EAs. The reduction effects are stronger when MEFs are voluntary or made closer to EAs. The evidence suggests that MEFs facilitate the correction of investors’ tendency to extrapolate earnings seasonality and its resulted stock mispricing.     

Earnings Behaviour of Financially Distressed Firms: The Role of Institutional Ownership

Using a sample of 859 U.S. bankruptcy-filing firms over the period 1986–2004, we examine the earnings behaviour of managers during the distressed period by looking at sources of abnormal accruals prior to the bankruptcy-filing year. Results show that managers of highly distressed firms shift earnings downwards prior to the bankruptcy filing. We test and provide evidence in support of two potential contributing factors. First, top-level management turnover among distressed firms leads new managers to earnings bath choices during the distressed period. Second, qualified audit opinions exert pressure on managers to follow more conservative earnings behaviour during the distressed period. Evidence is also provided that the management of distressed firms with lower (higher) institutional ownership has greater (lesser) tendency to manage earnings downwards. Results also show that higher institutional ownership mitigates the negative abnormal returns of firms with top management turnover. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to examine whether institutional ownership relates to market reaction in conjunction with a top management turnover or a qualified audit opinion during the distressed period. Prior studies focused on the investigation of earnings management or institutional ownership (separately) during the distressed period, but did not examine if the effect of institutional ownership on earnings behaviour also influences subsequent returns. Thus, the results of this study should be of interest to analysts, standard setters and regulatory bodies since our results show that management turnover, qualified audit opinions and firm governance mechanisms affect the quality of earnings and the level of abnormal returns.     

Loss firms’ annual report narratives and share price anticipation of earnings

We extend prior research into the association between disclosure quality and share price anticipation of earnings by discriminating between firms that report profits and firms that report losses. As a measure of disclosure quality we count the number of forward-looking earnings statements in annual report narratives. To measure the extent to which current share price movements anticipate future earnings changes we regress current stock returns on current and future earnings changes. The coefficients on the future earnings change variables are our measure of share price anticipation of earnings.Our regression results show that the association between annual report narratives and share price anticipation of earnings is not the same for profit and loss firms. For loss firms we find that the ability of stock returns to anticipate next period's earnings change is significantly greater when the firm provides a large number of earnings predictions in annual report narratives. We make no such observation for profit firms. In addition, once we control for variations in the intrinsic lead–lag relation between returns and earnings across industries, the observed difference between profit and loss firms becomes statistically significant. Overall, our results are consistent with annual report narratives being a particularly important source of information for loss-making firms.     

Corporate goodness and profit warnings

Is a firm that is known for positively engaging stakeholders expected to voluntarily disclose bad financial news? If it makes the announcement, does its corporate goodness help to mitigate the stock price reaction? We examine these issues using a sample of profit warnings, and a sample of firms with negative earnings surprises that did not warn. Firms that have positive corporate social responsibility ratings are more likely to provide earnings warnings than other firms. When they do provide a profit warning, the event negative abnormal returns are of significantly smaller magnitude than the returns of other firms providing warnings. This effect does not occur for social firms that decide not to warn. They suffer the same negative stock price impact on the earnings announcement day as other firms.     

Mispricing firm-level productivity

This paper provides a mispricing-based explanation for the negative relation between firm-level productivity and stock returns. Investors appear to underprice unproductive firms and overprice productive firms. We find evidence consistent with the speculative overpricing of productive firms driven by investor sentiment and short sale constraints. Investors erroneously extrapolate past productivity growth and its associated operating performance and stock returns, despite their subsequent reversals. Such mispricing is perpetuated because of limits to arbitrage and is partially corrected around earnings announcements when investors are surprised by unexpected earnings news. Decomposition analysis indicates that extrapolative mispricing and limits to arbitrage explain most of the return predictability of firm-level productivity.