浅论上市公司非经常性损益的界定和披露

本文回顾了中外关于非经常性损益的界定，提出了对企业非经常性损益应从交易或事项的性质和发生频率两个角度出发，采用以原则为导向的标准进行界定的看法。同时提出了先在附表披露，待条件成熟时再在主表进行披露的建议。     

对非经常性损益信息披露的思考

中国证监会要求上市公司在1999年度财务报告中增加披露“扣除非经济性损益后的净利润”信息。由于经常性损益项目的持续性很低，所以中国证监会的新增信息披露要求能够在一定程度上增加净利润信息的相关性。而从第一次实施结果来看，上市公司选择的、归属于非经常损益的项目名目繁多，且不尽符合非经常性损益的理论特征；上市公司的披露行为也存在各工程样的不规范情况，因此可靠性和可比性尚显薄弱，有用性有所削弱。     

上市公司非经常性损益信息披露的改进研究

为了保证上市公司的财务信息更客观地反映其财务状况和盈利能力,中国证监会于2008年11月发布公告对2007年的规定进行了修订。通过对100家上市公司财务报表中非经常性损益披露的统计分析,发现新的披露制度仍存在概念界定不完整、披露不统一、与退市政策关联度弱等不足之处,有待于进一步改进。     

我国非经常性损益信息披露管制效果研究

本文通过中国证券监督管理委员会的三次非经常性损益的管制规范对比分析得出研究假说:应用1999年、2001年和2004年的非经常性损益管制所披露的非经常性损益逐次增多。同时,采用每股非经常性损益与每股收益的绝对值比率这一指标和378家上市公司1999年至2005年连续7年的样本数据进行研究。通过进行图表分析、配对t检验和稳定性检验,我们找到经验证据支持我们的研究假说,进而支持了中国证券监督管理委员会的三次非经常性损益的管制规范取得了期望的效果。     

上市公司非经常性损益信息及其披露监管有效性研究

在上市公司的盈余中,非经常性损益往往成为其重要的组成部分,导致会计盈余信息可靠性降低,影响投资者的有效决策。证券监管机构作为证券市场管理者,从证券市场和投资者的角度出发,对上市公司的非经常性损益披露进行规范,并不断修订相关信息的披露规范,缩小该信息的可操作空间,以遏制这种行为。论文通过分析提出,证券监管机构对非经常性损益的明确规范以及强制性的披露要求,在一定程度上增加了会计信息的透明度,提高了会计信息质量,但并不能从根本上解决委托代理关系导致的信息不对称,也不能解决由此产生的盈余管理问题。作者就此提出建议,在会计信息确认和计量环节可以允许适当的职业判断空间,而在报告环节必须严格规范和管制,从而使非经常性损益的披露质量得到提高。     

非经常性损益与股票价格的相关性分析

通过对我国企业非经常性损益与股票价格的相关性分析表明:在1993～1999年间,我国企业非经常性损益的降低并没有提高会计信息与股票价格的相关性,投资者只关心短期利润,而不区分持续利润和暂时利润;而在2000～2002年,伴随经营利润和非经常性损益的定价乘数的下降,投资者逐步趋于理性和稳健,开始利用净资产所表示的企业内在价值来修正自己关于企业未来的预期.     

非经常性损益的列报:理论、准则与分析

我国证券市场监管者对盈余构成中的非经常性损益正在经历一个制度变化的过程。2008年证监会又发布了《公开发行证券的公司信息披露解释性公告第1号——非经常性损益(2008)》。然而,对于非经常性损益是否应该计入企业损益这个问题,理论研究中的当期营业观和损益满计观各执己见。各国的准则制定基本采纳损益满计观,但具体发布的准则、公告存在着差异。本文基于对理论的分析和准则的比较,认为在我国目前非经常性损益监管采取"突击式"增减列举项目的方式下,财务报告使用者有必要结合宏观经济形势的发展以及公司自身特点,对非经常性损益展开动态评价和嵌入性分析,合理评价非经常性损益的影响。     

非经常性损益新规解读

2008年10月,证监会发布了《公开发行证券的公司信息披露解释性公告第1号——非经常性损益（2008）》,对非经常性损益信息披露作了进一步的规范。本文结合新会计准则执行过程中出现的一些问题,从非经常性损益的定义、内容及披露要求等方面对本次新规定进行解读。     

非经常性损益新规解读

2008年10月,证监会发布了<公开发行证券的公司信息披露解释性公告第1号--非经常性损益(2008)>,对非经常性损益信息披露作了进一步的规范.本文结合新会计准则执行过程中出现的一些问题,从非经常性损益的定义、内容及披露要求等方面对本次新规定进行解读.     

A Medieval Controversy About Profit and Loss Allocations

This paper analyses a controversy between Maimonides and Rabbi Abraham Ben David of Posquierres over the allocation of partnership profits and losses in the absence of a partnership contract. The Maimonidean allocation system depends upon whether the partnership is formed for business or non-business (consumption) activities. The controversy concerns the notion of indivisibilities in partnership capital. This early debate is analysed in light of the modern—including game-theoretic—cost allocation literature.     

The effect of additional guidance on fair value measurement and disclosure in illiquid or inactive markets

This paper examines fair value accounting – specifically, the application of FASB FSP 157-4 in the US. Data is analyzed from financial firms before and after FSP 157-4 was implemented to examine how this standard changed fair valuations and disclosures. We consider whether managers took advantage of the flexibility in the new standard by classifying their assets at level 3. We find that there is no significant change in the amount of assets that are transferred into level 3 after FSP 157-4 as compared to before. We also find a significant increase in the extent of disclosures as measured by word count. Fair value disclosures increased by an average of 52%. After further partitioning the sample based on size, we find that both main results hold for small and big firms in our additional sample. There is no evidence managers used the flexibility of the new standard to classify more financial assets at level 3; however, managers responded to the new standard with a significantly longer disclosure.     

The measurement of sustainability disclosure: Abundance versus occurrence

Content analysis (disclosure abundance) and disclosure indices (disclosure occurrence) are popular methods for measuring the extent of disclosure. Few studies however compare the two approaches empirically or use empirical evidence to justify the use of one approach over the other. A study of sustainability reporting on Malaysian local government websites is used to illustrate how these two measurement approaches lead to different concepts of the extent of disclosure. Furthermore, hypothesised relationships between disclosure and independent variables based on theory differ substantially depending on the measurement approach for disclosure. Recommendations for the measurement of disclosure are suggested.     

A theory of risk disclosure

In this paper, we consider the price effects of risk disclosure. We develop a model in which investors are uncertain about the variance of a firm’s cash flows and the firm releases an imperfect signal regarding this variance. In our model, uncertainty over the riskiness of a firm’s cash flows leads to a variance uncertainty premium in its price. We demonstrate that risk disclosure decreases the firm’s cost of capital by reducing this premium and that the market response to risk disclosure is small when the expected level of risk is high. Moreover, we find that firms acquire and disclose more risk information when their cash flow risk is greater than expected. Finally, we demonstrate that in a multi-asset setting, only risk disclosure concerning systematic risks will impact the cost of capital.     

Informative or distracting: CSR disclosure of peer firms and analyst forecast accuracy

We investigate the relationship between the CSR disclosure of peer firms and the analyst forecast accuracy of the focal firm. We find a negative association between peer CSR disclosure and analyst forecast error of the focal firm, indicating that peer CSR disclosure is informative. This negative association is more pronounced when the information environment of the focal firm is worse, when the correlation in fundamentals between the focal firm and its peers is higher, when the business of the focal firm is less complex, when the focal firm has more expert analyst coverage, when the focal firm's financial performance is more sensitive to CSR engagement, or when the quality of peer CSR disclosure is higher. Overall, we show that peer CSR disclosure conveys value-relevant information about the focal firm. Our study enriches the literature on both analyst forecasts and peer information, and we also provide important implications for practitioners in understanding the role of CSR disclosure in capital markets.     

A theory of voluntary disclosure and cost of capital

This paper explores the links between firms’ voluntary disclosures and their cost of capital. Existing studies investigate the relation between mandatory disclosures and cost of capital and find no cross-sectional effect but a negative association in time-series. In this paper, I find that when disclosure is voluntary firms that disclose their information have a lower cost of capital than firms that do not disclose, but the association between voluntary disclosure and cost of capital for disclosing and nondisclosing firms is positive in aggregate. I further examine whether reductions in cost of capital indicate improved risk-sharing or investment efficiency. I also find that high (low) disclosure frictions lead to overinvestment (underinvestment) relative to first-best. As average cost of capital proxies for risk-sharing but not investment efficiency, the relation between cost of capital and ex ante efficiency may be ambiguous and often irrelevant.     

A comparison of voluntary and mandated climate change-related disclosure

This study draws on legitimacy theory to investigate the relationship between mandatory disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions by companies that are subject to specific environmental legislation (the Australian National Greenhouse Energy Reporting Act 2007) and the level of voluntary environmental disclosures. Using a sample of 535 observations, we find that i) Overall, legislation-affected companies increase their disclosures compared with non-affected companies, ii) As many companies reduce their disclosures as increase them, iii) there is an increase in the level of emissions volume disclosures in legislation-affected companies compared with the same company pre-implementation, iv) legislation-affected higher emitters have higher levels of voluntary disclosures. These findings are consistent with legitimacy theory, which predicts differential disclosures in circumstances to avoid scrutiny.     

A simple structural estimator of disclosure costs

Review of Accounting Studies - This study recovers a simple firm-level measure of disclosure costs implied by the voluntary disclosure theory of Verrecchia (Journal of Accounting and Economics...     

Information asymmetry,corporate disclosure,and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature

Financial reporting and disclosure are potentially important means for management to communicate firm performance and governance to outside investors. We provide a framework for analyzing managers’ reporting and disclosure decisions in a capital markets setting, and identify key research questions. We then review current empirical research on disclosure regulation, information intermediaries, and the determinants and economic consequences of corporate disclosure. Our survey concludes that current research has generated a number of useful insights. We identify many fundamental questions that remain unanswered, and changes in the economic environment that raise new questions for research.     

Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital

We test the relation between financial and social disclosure and the cost of equity capital for a sample of Canadian firms with year-ends in 1990, 1991 and 1992. We find that, consistent with prior research, the quantity and quality of financial disclosure is negatively related to the cost of equity capital for firms with low analyst following. Contrary to expectations, there is a significant positive relation between social disclosures and the cost of equity capital. This positive relationship is mitigated among firms with better financial performance. We consider some biases in social disclosures that may explain this result. We also note that social disclosures may benefit the firm through its effect on organizational stakeholders other than equity investors.