基于环境不确定性的管理会计对策研究

环境不确定性取决于环境的复杂性和环境的变动性。管理会计主动应对环境不确定性是企业价值创造的本质体现,企业应以顾客价值创造为导向实现企业的价值增值。管理会计信息支持系统通过对信息有用性的甄别与分析,提高了企业管理者对管理会计信息的认知能力;管理会计控制系统借助于行为动机理论进一步优化了控制系统的管理机制,推动了管理会计体系的完善与发展。     

上市银行衍生金融工具会计信息质量研究——基于上报信息和生成信息质量

近年来,我国金融市场的衍生金融工具蓬勃兴起、不断创新。衍生金融工具具有复杂性、杠杆性、高风险、高收益等特质,对传统的会计处理方式带来了多重挑战,也对财务报告提出了更高的要求。我国从2018年开始施行新金融工具会计准则,会计准则变更直接影响衍生金融工具的确认、计量以及列报,对会计信息质量产生影响。本文从财务会计报告目标出发,结合衍生金融工具会计特征,从会计信息上报质量、会计信息生成质量两个维度构建会计信息质量评价指标体系。通过上市银行公开的财务报告,对衍生金融工具会计信息质量进行客观评价,分析新金融工具准则施行后上市银行衍生金融工具会计信息质量存在的问题,并提出政策建议。     

社会责任会计计量和披露问题探讨

鉴于社会责任会计计量的复杂性、和内容的广泛性和社会责任会计信息供给不足的问题,本文主要探讨了企业社会责任计量方法、报告模式、以及信息内容选择等,目的是督促企业积极履行社会责任,增加社会责任会计信息数量,提高社会责任会计信息质量.     

XBRL对会计信息质量的改善问题浅析

本文介绍了XBRL对会计信息质量的改善作用,并认为分类标准质量、技术复杂性、信息安全和审计等问题是目前影响信息质量提高的主要问题。相关部门应针对这几个问题对XBRL进行改善。     

会计信息失真的原因与防范

会计信息失真是会计信息不能真实地反映会计主体的经济活动情况，具有广泛性、复杂性与隐蔽性的特征。从信息流程上看，会计信息失真的原因是多方面的，针对不同类型的企业应采取相应的防范措施，改革会计人员的管理体制，提高会计人员的素质，以促进市场经济的健康发展。     

我国企业会计透明度问题及对策研究

企业对外报出会计信息的目的是在于向管理层和管理层以外的投资者提供真实有效的会计信息,方便管理层和投资者了解企业的财务状况、经营成果和现金流量的情况.作为企业内部与外部联系的桥梁的会计信息,信息透明度的高低直接影响着企业外部对企业内部的了解.会计透明度主要涉及会计信息质量的各个方面,包括会计准则完善制定和执行,会计信息质量确认标准,会计信息的恰当披露.然而,这三个方面想要做好,各有各的复杂性与困难性.在会计透明度管理的路上,必然困难重重,存在的问题必然要认真分析并得到解决.中国资本市场发展历程中,会计信息不透明的案例也是层出不穷,而这些会计信息不透明的发生原因是什么,以及如何去改善这种情况,是本文最主要研究的问题.     

账外经营偷税的检查技巧

会计信息是税收管理和税务检查的基础。一些纳税主体为了攫取非法利益,通过提供虚假会计信息等手段,大肆搞账外经营、偷逃税款。账外经营偷税引起企业同业之间恶性竞争,扰乱了正常的税收秩序,具有很大的社会危害性。税务机关应充分认识打击账外经营偷税的重要性、复杂性和艰巨性,进而采取有效的税收监管措施与防范对策。     

浅析企业会计信息的质量

对于会计信息的质量的定义,学界有许多不同的看法。但这些定义都围绕着一个基本思想:会计信息的质量体现在其对于特定用户需求的满足程度。满足程度的高低,一定程度上说明了质量的好坏。因此,会计质量并非一个简单的、直接的、固化的定义和标准,而是多维的、可变的,有其丰富的内涵,在不同环境下应作不同的理解。只有做到了具体情况具体分析,才能够利用会计信息实现科学决策。此文通过分析企业会计信息质量特征相关内容,旨在进一步说明会计信息质量的复杂性。     

会计信息失真的原因及对策

<正>会计信息失真,是指会计信息没有真实反映客观的经济活动,从而给会计信息的使用者提供了虚假的情况,给决策者们决策带来了不利影响的一种现象。目前,我国会计信息失真已经到了各相关利益主体无法承受的地步,危及到会计信息固有作用的发展,以及对整个会计行业的诚信的怀疑,威胁到证券市场的有效运行和整个社会资源的合理配置。因此,对会计信息失真的根源和成因     

会计信息失真的原因及对策

<正>会计信息失真,是指会计信息没有真实反映客观的经济活动,从而给会计信息的使用者提供了虚假的情况,给决策者们决策带来了不利影响的一种现象。目前,我国会计信息失真已经到了各相关利益主体无法承受的地步,危及到会计信息固有作用的发展,以及对整个会计行业的诚信的怀疑,威胁到证券市场的有效运行和整个社会资源的合理配置。因此,对会计信息失真的根源和成因     

Searching for value relevance of book value and earnings: a case of premium versus discount firms

We examine the premium/discount firm characteristic that fundamentally affects the value relevance of two key accounting line items, earnings and book values. We argue that from the perspective of both the residual income and option-style valuation models, the relative valuation roles of earnings and book values differ fundamentally between firms that trade at a premium vis-à-vis discount to book value. We find that book values play a significantly more important role in equity valuation than earnings when firms trade at a discount. We also find that other known influential conditions, such as the sign of earnings (Collins et al. in Acc Rev 74(1):29–61, 1999) or the relative levels of earnings and book value (Burgstahler and Dichev in Acc Rev 72(2):187–215, 1997), become inconsequential when the premium/discount condition of the firm is controlled for. The discovered relationships between the relative valuation roles of book values and earnings and the discount/premium characteristics of the firm are robust to the effect of time, information environment and the industry of the firm.     

Geographic diversification and firm value in the financial services industry

This paper investigates whether geographic diversification is value-enhancing or value-destroying in the financial services sector, broadly defined. Our dataset comprises approximately 3579 observations over the period from 1985 to 2004 and covers the entire range of U.S. financial intermediaries — commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and financial infrastructure services firms. We use two alternative measures of geographic diversification: (1) a dummy variable whether the firm reports more than one geographic segment and (2) the percentage of sales from non-domestic operations. Our results indicate that geographic diversification is not associated with a significant valuation discount in financial intermediaries. However, when accounting for the firms' main activity-areas, we find evidence of a significant discount associated with geographic diversification in securities firms and a premium in credit intermediaries and insurance companies. All these results are robust after taking into account functional diversification of the firms, a potential endogeneity of both functional and geographic diversification, and a potential value transfer from equity to debt holders by using estimates of the market value of debt.     

The valuation discount of multi-segment firms in Australia

This paper refines the Berger and Ofek (1995) methodology to estimate the valuation discount of multi-segment firms in Australia between 1988 and 1998. Evidence is found that based on earnings before tax, the sample of multi-segment firms traded at a 29 per cent greater discount than a comparable portfolio of single segment firms over the sample period. To explain the results further analysis shows that the valuation discount was driven by poorly performing multi-segment firms rather than multi-segment firms per se. This raises questions about studies that conclude that diversification is value destroying.     

Has European corporatism delivered? A survey with preliminary evidence

I ask whether European firms' investments in stakeholder welfare come at the cost of lower shareholder value. Focusing on the largest 50 public firms in four European countries, I find a valuation discount in the Tobin's Q of continental European firms relative to matched US firms. The valuation discount is correlated with presence of large block holders in European firms but not with the poorer disclosure record of US firms on the environmental (E) and social (S) dimensions. In sum, poorer governance (G) in continental Europe appears to destroy more shareholder value than better E and S disclosure can add.     

Does geographic dispersion affect firm valuation?

We find that the geographic dispersion of a corporation affects its firm valuation. Firms with subsidiaries located in different regions of the United States experience a valuation discount of 6.2% after controlling for the impact of both global and industrial diversifications. The valuation discount increases as firms expand their operations to different regions nationwide. Results show that firms with more anti-takeover provisions are more likely to be geographically diverse, and that these firms experience greater value discounts compared with their counterparts with fewer such provisions. Our overall evidence suggests that the geographic location of corporate activities is an essential component of corporate policies and has important market valuation implications.     

Spin‐offs: Tackling the Conglomerate Discount

Spin‐offs and other restructuring actions have risen sharply in 2011, driven by the need to streamline business models and increase corporate values. These transactions can be an effective tool for addressing the conglomerate valuation discount that has been a pervasive phenomenon over the past decade, affecting conglomerates in most regions across the world. In particular, North American and Western European conglomerates trade at valuation multiples that are roughly 10% lower than those of their pure‐play peers. A conglomerate discount also prevails in some of the emerging markets, including CEEMEA and Asia. Nevertheless, in some regions, notably Japan and Latin America, conglomerates typically trade at a premium. Although the average conglomerate discount narrowed during the financial crisis due to the perceived benefits of diversification during downturns, almost half of the conglomerates globally trade at a discount, and almost a third of all conglomerates have persistently traded at a discount during the past five years. For such companies, fixing the discount requires a simplification of the business model. The authors show that recent announcements of spin‐offs have led to significant share price outperformance by the parent company in both the short and the longterm, highlighting their effectiveness as a tool to enhance valuation. Spin‐offs can be particularly attractive for those conglomerates that operate unrelated business segments since these firms trade at a sharper discount than diversified firms operating in related businesses. The authors discuss how management should think about the financial implications of spin‐offs, including capital structure considerations, dividend policy, and turnover in the shareholder base.     

Corporate use of derivatives and excess value of diversification

We provide a link between diversification discount and corporate use of financial derivatives. We show that diversified firms benefit from financial risk management. Our findings are consistent with the notion that derivative usage lowers information asymmetry and thereby reduces the negative valuation effects of diversification. Our evidence complements the earlier findings of both the risk management literature and diversification discount literature and is robust to controls for endogeneity and information asymmetry levels.     

Managerial discretion to delay the recognition of goodwill impairment: The role of enforcement

Under International Financial Reporting Standards, managers can use two approaches to increase the estimated fair value of goodwill in order to justify not recognizing impairment: (1) make overly optimistic valuation assumptions, and (2) increase future cash flow forecasts by inflating current cash flows. Because enforcement constrains the use of optimistic valuation assumptions, we hypothesize that enforcement influences the relative use of these two choices. We test this hypothesis by comparing a sample of 1,958 firms from 36 countries that are likely to delay recognizing goodwill impairment (suspect firms) to a sample of control firms. First, we find that firms in high‐enforcement countries use a higher discount rate to test goodwill for impairment than firms in low‐enforcement countries. We also find a more positive association between discount rate and upward cash flow management for suspect firms than for control firms. This result is consistent with suspect firms substituting optimistic valuation assumptions with inflated current cash flows. Second, we find that, relative to control firms, suspect firms exhibit higher upward cash flow management in high‐enforcement countries than in low‐enforcement countries. Third, we show that suspect firms in high‐enforcement countries are more likely to eventually impair goodwill.     

Is the diversification discount caused by the book value bias of debt?

We analyze whether the diversification discount is driven by the book value bias of corporate debt. Book values of debt may be a more downward biased proxy of the market value of debt for diversified firms, relative to undiversified firms, as diversification leads to lower firm risk. Thus, measures of firm value based on book values of debt undervalue diversified firms relative to focused firms. Our paper complements recent literature which uses market values to test the risk reduction hypothesis for a subsample of firms for which debt is traded. Alternatively, we employ market value of debt estimates for the whole firm universe. Consistent with the above hypothesis, we show that the use of book values of debt underestimates the value of diversified firms. There is no discount for mainly equity financed firms and lower distress risk and equity volatility for diversified firms. More concentrated ownership increases firm valuation.     

Quantifying time value errors

Time valuation of cash flows is an essential part of personal financial planning and management. Many financial arrangements are priced according to a cash-flow valuation model. Expected cash flows associated with a stock or bond are discounted at an appropriate risk-adjusted rate in order to determine the fair value of the financial asset. Home mortgage loans are priced according to the discounted value of the future principal and interest cash flows. Yet, despite the importance of the discounted cash flow methodology in pricing assets, computational errors are often made when discount factors are not calculated precisely. This article attempts to quantify the magnitude of the error when the mathematical function for present value is ignored and interpolation is used instead to determine the discount factor.