Market reactions to mandated interest capitalization*

Abstract. Following a five year moratorium on adoption of interest capitalization by the SEC, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 34 mandating that firms previously writing off interest charges related to the construction of assets change to capitalizing those charges. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of this change in terms of the security market's reactions both to policy announcements leading up to the promulgation of SFAS No. 34, and to earnings announcements following implementation by affected companies. Significant average market reactions are indicated for two of ten policy announcements before the effects of firm size are considered; however, significance disappears when those effects are removed from excess returns. Although a bias is detected in the forecasts of analysts consistent with less than full revision to include the earnings impact, there is little evidence of market reactions to announcements of those earnings. Résumé. Après un moratoire de cinq ans sur l'adoption de la capitalisation de l'intérêt par la S.E.C., le Financial Accounting Standards Board a émis le bulletin numéro 34 qui demande aux entreprises qui passaient aux dépenses les charges d'intérêts reliées à la construction d'actifs, de les capitaliser. L'objectif de cette étude, est d'analyser l'impact de ce changement (en termes des réactions du marché des valeurs) aux annonces de politiques qui ont conduit à la promulgation du bulletin 34 et aux annonces de bénéfices qui ont suivi l'implantation pour les compagnies touchées. Les réactions du marché en moyenne sont significatives pour deux des dix annonces de politiques, avant de prendre en considération les effets de l'ampleur de la firme; cependant, ce n'est plus significatif lorsque ces effets sont retranchés des rendements excédentaires. Quoiqu'un biais soit détecté dans les prévisions des analystes, en accord avec une révision moins que complète pour inclure l'impact des bénéfices, il y a peu d'évidence des réactions du marché aux annonces de ces bénéfices.     

Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States

To what degree are audit fees for U.S. firms with publicly traded equity higher than fees for otherwise similar firms with private equity? The answer is potentially important for evaluating regulatory regime design efficiency and for understanding audit demand and production economics. For U.S. firms with publicly traded debt, we hold constant the regulatory regime, including mandated issuer reporting and auditor responsibilities. We vary equity ownership and thus public securities market contextual factors, including any related public firm audit fees from increased audit effort to reduce audit litigation risk and/or pure litigation risk premium (litigation channel effects). In cross‐section, we find that audit fees for public equity firms are 20–22% higher than fees for otherwise similar private equity firms. Time‐series comparisons for firms that change ownership status yield larger percentage fee increases (decreases) for those going public (private). Results are consistent with litigation channel effects giving rise to substantial incremental audit fees for U.S. firms with public equity ownership.     

Ben Bernanke and Bagehot's Rules

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has claimed that the Fed's bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis were consistent with Walter Bagehot's rules for a lender of last resort. This paper demonstrates Bernanke's claims to be mistaken. First, we outline Bagehot's doctrine for a classical lender of last resort. Next, we discuss Bernanke's theory of bank bailouts and his statements regarding the Fed's role in the 2008 bank bailouts. Finally, we examine the bailouts and demonstrate that, contrary to Bernanke's claims, the Fed's actions were not consistent with Bagehot's rules for a lender of last resort.     

Experimental Test of a Q-Sort Procedure for Prioritizing R&D Projects

Abstract— In this study, fifteen managers and scientists experimented with the use of a Q-sort procedure for evaluating and prioritizing thirteen research projects. Q-sorting is a psychometric method for classifying items according to the opinions of a group of persons, and for evoking group consensus on these classifications. The procedure focuses on the rather natural individual opinion/group decision making process that must take place in project selection/evaluation. In general, the participants thought that Q-sorting was too imprecise to yield final decisions. However, progress was made toward organizational consensus, and the participants felt the procedure was valuable for facilitating scientist/scientist and the scientist-manager communications within the project evaluation process. It was therefore concluded that Q-sorting may be a valuable aid to the heuristic idea-exchange process that should accompany any formal project selection exercise. The results here suggest that Q-sorting may be a good procedure to facilitate the use of a mathematical project selection model.