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.     

Investor Sentiment and Pro Forma Earnings Disclosures

We examine the influence of investor sentiment on managers’ discretionary disclosure of “pro forma” (adjusted) earnings metrics in earnings press releases. We find that managers’ propensity to disclose an adjusted earnings metric (especially one that exceeds the GAAP earnings number) increases with the level of investor sentiment. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that, as investor sentiment increases, managers: (1) exclude higher levels of both recurring and nonrecurring expenses in calculating the pro forma earnings number and (2) emphasize the pro forma figure by placing it more prominently within the earnings press release. Additional analyses indicate that the association between investor sentiment and managers’ pro forma disclosure decisions at least partly reflects opportunistic motives. Finally, we find that managers’ own sentiment‐driven expectations also play a role in their pro forma disclosure decisions.     

Pro forma accounting disclosures: The effect of reconciliations and financial reporting knowledge on nonprofessional investors' judgments

Regulation G requires companies that report non-GAAP or “pro forma” earnings provide a reconciliation. While nonprofessional investors are a large, heterogeneous population with varying degrees of financial reporting knowledge, previous research treats them as a homogenous group. The study examines how differences in financial reporting knowledge and information viewing behavior affect the influence of reconciled pro forma earnings disclosures on nonprofessional investors' judgments. Lower-knowledge investors appear to incorporate information on differences between GAAP and pro forma earnings in their judgments as long as they view this information in the reconciliation. However, higher-knowledge investors appear to consistently incorporate information on differences between GAAP and pro forma earnings in their judgments regardless of the relative amount of time they spend viewing the reconciliation relative to other disclosures. Our results suggest that knowledge differences influence how nonprofessional investors acquire and use information on differences between GAAP and pro forma earnings.     

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.     

Non-GAAP earnings and board independence

We examine the association between board independence and the characteristics of non-GAAP earnings. Our results suggest that companies with less independent boards are more likely to opportunistically exclude recurring items from non-GAAP earnings. Specifically, we find that exclusions from non-GAAP earnings have a greater association with future GAAP earnings and operating earnings when boards contain proportionally fewer independent directors. Consistent with the association between board independence and the permanence of non-GAAP exclusions reflecting opportunism rather than the economics of the firm, we find that the association declines following Regulation G and that managers appear to use exclusions to meet earnings targets prior to selling their shares more often in firms with fewer independent board members. Overall, our results suggest that board independence is positively associated with the quality of non-GAAP earnings.     

Transitory earnings components and the two faces of non‐generally accepted accounting principles earnings

Non‐generally accepted accounting principles (non‐GAAP) earnings reporting has been linked with both informative and strategic incentives. We seek to disentangle these conflicting effects by examining the association between non‐GAAP earnings disclosure and transitory items in GAAP earnings, conditional on managers' reporting incentives. We report evidence of a statistically and economically significant asymmetric relation between disclosure propensity and transitory items in GAAP earnings conditional on both the sign and magnitude of the GAAP earnings surprise. Our findings suggest that non‐GAAP earnings disclosures tend to be driven by a desire for informative (strategic) reporting when GAAP earnings beat (undershoot) market expectations.     

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.     

Why do pro forma and Street earnings not reflect changes in GAAP? Evidence from SFAS 123R

This study examines how key market participants??managers and analysts??responded to SFAS 123R??s controversial requirement that firms recognize stock-based compensation expense. Despite mandated recognition of the expense, some firms?? managers exclude it from pro forma earnings and some firms?? analysts exclude it from Street earnings. We find evidence consistent with managers opportunistically excluding the expense to increase earnings, smooth earnings, and meet earnings benchmarks but no evidence that these exclusions result in an earnings measure that better predicts future firm performance. In contrast, we find that analysts exclude the expense from earnings forecasts when exclusion increases earnings?? predictive ability for future performance and that opportunism generally does not explain exclusion by analysts incremental to exclusion by managers. Thus our findings indicate that opportunism is the primary explanation for exclusion of the expense from pro forma earnings and predictive ability is the primary explanation for exclusion from Street earnings. Our findings suggest the controversy surrounding the recognition of stock-based compensation expense may be attributable to cross-sectional variation in the relevance of the expense for equity valuation, as well as to differing incentives of market participants.     

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.     

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.     

Disentangling Managers’ and Analysts’ Non‐GAAP Reporting

Researchers frequently proxy for managers’ non‐GAAP disclosures using performance metrics available through analyst forecast data providers (FDPs), such as I/B/E/S. The extent to which FDP‐provided earnings are a valid proxy for managers’ non‐GAAP reporting, however, has been debated extensively. We explore this important question by creating the first large‐sample data set of managers’ non‐GAAP earnings disclosures, which we directly compare to I/B/E/S data. Although we find a substantial overlap between the two data sets, we also find that they differ in systematic ways because I/B/E/S (1) excludes managers’ lower quality non‐GAAP numbers and (2) sometimes provides higher quality non‐GAAP measures that managers do not explicitly disclose. Our results indicate that using I/B/E/S to identify managers’ non‐GAAP disclosures significantly underestimates the aggressiveness of their reporting choices. We encourage researchers interested in managers’ non‐GAAP reporting to use our newly available data set of manager‐disclosed non‐GAAP metrics because it more accurately captures managers’ reporting choices.     

The informativeness of pro forma and street earnings: an examination of information asymmetry around earnings announcements

Using adverse-selection cost as a proxy for information asymmetry, we find evidence that non-GAAP earnings numbers issued by management (pro forma earnings) and analysts (street earnings) improve price discovery. First, information asymmetry before an earnings announcement is positively associated with the probability of a non-GAAP earnings number at the forthcoming earnings announcement. Second, the post-announcement reduction in information asymmetry is greater when managers or analysts issue non-GAAP earnings at the earnings announcement and when the magnitude of the non-GAAP earnings adjustment is larger. Our results suggest that earnings adjustments by analysts and managers increase the amount and precision of earnings information and help to narrow information asymmetry between informed and uninformed traders following earnings announcements. Alternatively, the findings may be attributable to characteristics of non-GAAP firms and overall better reporting quality for those firms rather than non-GAAP earnings disclosure per se.     

The Impact of Media Attention on the Use of Alternative Earnings Measures

The practice of reporting earnings measures that deviate from generally accepted accounting principles (non‐GAAP measures) has received negative attention in the media. In a period of increased regulatory concern for these reporting practices, we explore whether there has been a shift away from the use of non‐GAAP metrics. This study focuses on the Dutch situation, where regulators responded conservatively (‘light’) to the accounting scandals. This contrasts with the U.S., where regulators intervened with a radical (‘heavy’) reform of regulation. We analyse a sample of earnings press releases published in the period 2000–05 from companies listed at Euronext Amsterdam. Our findings indicate that Dutch companies report non‐GAAP measures frequently and prominently. However, companies' reporting behaviour changes after a peak in negative media attention for non‐GAAP reporting. The magnitude of the adjustments to GAAP earnings becomes smaller and companies seem to have different reasons to report non‐GAAP measures. The effect of the media attention is stronger when companies have been criticized for their non‐GAAP reporting in the press. Investors seem to have become more hesitant towards the use of non‐GAAP measures for their decision‐making after negative media attention. Together, these findings suggest that the negative media attention for non‐GAAP measures has influenced the decisions of investors and managers.     

Comparing the Value Relevance of Two Operating Income Measures

Prior research has shown that pro-forma (recurring operating) earnings reported by managers and analysts are more value relevant than GAAP net income. Since GAAP net income contains many non-operating items that reduce its value relevance compared to operating earnings, comparing the value relevance of GAAP net income with operating earnings unduly favors operating earnings. We show that operating earnings reported by managers and analysts are more value relevant than a measure of operating earnings derived from firms' financial statements, as reported by Standard and Poor's. Our evidence is important because it indicates that operating earnings reported by managers and analysts contain value relevant information beyond that provided by operating earnings obtained by sophisticated users from firms' financial statements.     

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.     

The Differential Value Relevance of S&P's Core Earnings Versus GAAP Earnings: The Role of Stock Option Expense

In 2002, Standard & Poor's (S&P) introduced Core Earnings as a proprietary, uniform earnings metric, with the goal of improving financial reporting. The distinguishing feature of Core Earnings is its consistent treatment of seven adjustments to GAAP earnings for which there is no consensus adjustment by managers and analysts. We use stock price and return data to assess whether investors perceive Core Earnings to be more value relevant than GAAP earnings. The implementation of FASB 123R changed the calculation of GAAP and Core Earnings. This change allows us to assess the role of stock option expense in the valuation of earnings numbers by partitioning the sample into pre‐ and post‐FASB 123R periods and creating consistent measures of GAAP and Core Earnings. Our price results indicate that Core Earnings is more value relevant than GAAP earnings in the pre‐period after controlling for stock option expense, and in the post‐FASB 123R periods. The price results provide empirical evidence consistent with S&P's expectation that a uniformly calculated earnings measure is a more consistent and useful indicator of current performance and future earnings.     

Do managers use earnings guidance to influence street earnings exclusions?

Despite the apparent importance of “street earnings” to investors, we know relatively little about the process through which this earnings metric is determined. The limited evidence in the extant literature provides analyst-centric explanations, suggesting that analysts’ abilities and incentives influence which line items forecast-tracking services exclude from GAAP earnings to arrive at street earnings. We propose an alternative explanation: managers actively influence analysts’ forecast exclusion decisions via earnings guidance. We test this explanation by examining how earnings guidance influences two aspects of analysts’ exclusions: (1) special item exclusions (i.e., nonrecurring items) and (2) incremental exclusions (i.e., recurring items). We find that for firms with no special items in the previous year, when managers guide, analysts exclude almost all current-year special items, whereas when managers do not guide, the proportion that analysts exclude is significantly lower. More importantly, we that analysts’ incremental exclusions are significantly higher when managers guide than when they do not guide. Overall, our evidence suggests that managers play an active role in influencing the composition of street earnings via earnings guidance.     

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.     

The Value Relevance of Mandatory Non‐GAAP Earnings

This paper examines the value relevance of earnings components where there is a mandatory requirement to report generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings and non‐GAAP earnings, and where the items to be eliminated from GAAP earnings are defined in detail. The setting is different from non‐GAAP earnings disclosures presented in the United States and elsewhere, where managers have discretion over whether to report a non‐GAAP earnings number, and what to exclude from GAAP earnings. Our mandatory setting enables us to report value relevance results that are not confounded by managers' discretionary choices regarding non‐GAAP earnings exclusions. We use price‐level regressions, based on the Ohlson (1995) model, to test for incremental and relative value relevance. The results show that non‐GAAP earnings reported under a mandatory regime have higher value relevance than GAAP earnings. The disaggregation of these items is useful to investors in a setting where managerial motivations are minimized.     

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.