Researchers have used various measures as indications of "earnings quality" including persistence, accruals, smoothness, timeliness, loss avoidance, investor responsiveness, and external indicators such as restatements and SEC enforcement releases. For each measure, we discuss causes of variation in the measure as well as consequences. We reach no single conclusion on what earnings quality is because "quality" is contingent on the decision context. We also point out that the "quality" of earnings is a function of the firm's fundamental performance. The contribution of a firm's fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work. Over the years, researchers have devised various measures of "earnings quality" to represent decision usefulness in specific decision contexts. These measures, however, have become proxies for "earnings quality" in a generic sense, absent a decision context. The result is that some papers use a proxy for earnings quality that does not match the hypothesized form of decision usefulness in their study, but they nonetheless find results that are consistent with their hypothesis. Other papers are intentionally agnostic and find robust results across multiple proxies for earnings quality. The fact that researchers find consistent and robust results across proxies suggests that there is common component to the various measures of quality, which is the firm's fundamental earnings process. Existing research does not clearly distinguish the impact of a firm's fundamental earnings process on the decision usefulness ("quality") of its earnings from the impact of the application of accounting measurement to that process. Research attention has focused on earnings management that reduces the reliability of earnings rather than on the ability of specific features of an accrual-based accounting system to provide a more decision-useful measure, conditional on the firm's fundamental earnings process. September 2009Thanks to Michelle Hanlon (the editor), Shiva Rajgopal, Terry Shevlin, Nemit Shroff, Richard Sloan, and Rodrigo Verdi for helpful comments. The framework for this review is based on Schrand's discussion of earnings quality at the April 2006 CARE Conference sponsored by the Center for Accounting Research at the University of Notre Dame. *Title Page/Author Identifier Page/Abstract 1 Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequencesWe begin with a definition of "earnings quality" that sets the scope of our review. Higher quality earnings more faithfully represent the features of the firm's fundamental earnings process that are relevant to a specific decision made by a specific decision-maker. Our definition implies that the term "earnings quality" is meaningless without specifying the decision context, because the relevant features of the firm's fundamental earnings process differ across decisions and decision makers. Consistent with this broad definition, we review approximately 350 published papers on e...

Researchers have used various measures as indications of "earnings quality" including persistence, accruals, smoothness, timeliness, loss avoidance, investor responsiveness, and external indicators such as restatements and SEC enforcement releases. For each measure, we discuss causes of variation in the measure as well as consequences. We reach no single conclusion on what earnings quality is because "quality" is contingent on the decision context. We also point out that the "quality" of earnings is a function of the firm's fundamental performance. The contribution of a firm's fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work. Over the years, researchers have devised various measures of "earnings quality" to represent decision usefulness in specific decision contexts. These measures, however, have become proxies for "earnings quality" in a generic sense, absent a decision context. The result is that some papers use a proxy for earnings quality that does not match the hypothesized form of decision usefulness in their study, but they nonetheless find results that are consistent with their hypothesis. Other papers are intentionally agnostic and find robust results across multiple proxies for earnings quality. The fact that researchers find consistent and robust results across proxies suggests that there is common component to the various measures of quality, which is the firm's fundamental earnings process. Existing research does not clearly distinguish the impact of a firm's fundamental earnings process on the decision usefulness ("quality") of its earnings from the impact of the application of accounting measurement to that process. Research attention has focused on earnings management that reduces the reliability of earnings rather than on the ability of specific features of an accrual-based accounting system to provide a more decision-useful measure, conditional on the firm's fundamental earnings process. September 2009Thanks to Michelle Hanlon (the editor), Shiva Rajgopal, Terry Shevlin, Nemit Shroff, Richard Sloan, and Rodrigo Verdi for helpful comments. The framework for this review is based on Schrand's discussion of earnings quality at the April 2006 CARE Conference sponsored by the Center for Accounting Research at the University of Notre Dame. *Title Page/Author Identifier Page/Abstract 1 Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequencesWe begin with a definition of "earnings quality" that sets the scope of our review. Higher quality earnings more faithfully represent the features of the firm's fundamental earnings process that are relevant to a specific decision made by a specific decision-maker. Our definition implies that the term "earnings quality" is meaningless without specifying the decision context, because the relevant features of the firm's fundamental earnings process differ across decisions and decision makers. Consistent with this broad definition, we review approximately 350 published papers on e...

We examine the use of currency derivatives in order to differentiate among existing theories of hedging behavior. Firms with greater growth opportunities and tighter financial constraints are more likely to use currency derivatives. This result suggests that firms might use derivatives to reduce cash flow variation that might otherwise preclude firms from investing in valuable growth opportunities. Firms with extensive foreign exchange-rate exposure and economies of scale in hedging activities are also more likely to use currency derivatives. Finally, the source of foreign exchange-rate exposure is an important factor in the choice among types of currency derivatives. AbstractWe examine ftrms' use of currency derivatives to in order to differentiate among ex isting theories

A detailed analysis of 49 firms subject to AAERs suggests that approximately one-quarter of the misstatements meet the legal standards of intent. In the remaining three quarters, the initial misstatement reflects an optimistic bias that is not necessarily intentional. Because of the bias, however, in subsequent periods these firms are more likely to be in a position in which they are compelled to intentionally misstate earnings. Overconfident executives are more likely to exhibit an optimistic bias and thus are more likely to start down a slippery slope of growing intentional misstatements. Evidence from a high-tech sample and a larger and more general sample support the overconfidence explanation for this path to misstatements and AAERs. Forthcoming: Journal of Accounting and EconomicsAbstract A detailed analysis of 49 firms subject to AAERs suggests that approximately one-quarter of the misstatements meet the legal standards of intent. In the remaining three quarters, the initial misstatement reflects an optimistic bias that is not necessarily intentional. Because of the bias, however, in subsequent periods these firms are more likely to be in a position in which they are compelled to intentionally misstate earnings. Overconfident executives are more likely to exhibit an optimistic bias and thus are more likely to start down a slippery slope of growing intentional misstatements. Evidence from a high-tech sample and a larger and more general sample support the overconfidence explanation for this path to misstatements and AAERs.

We show that higher cash flow volatility is associated with lower average levels of investment in capital expenditures, R&D, and advertising. This association suggests that firms do not use external capital markets to fully cover cash flow shortfalls but rather permanently forgo investment. Cash flow volatility also is associated with higher costs of accessing external capital. Moreover, these higher costs, as measured by some proxies, imply a greater sensitivity of investment to cash flow volatility. Thus, cash flow volatility not only increases the likelihood that a firm will need to access capital markets, it also increases the costs of doing so. The Impact of Cash Flow Volatility on Discretionary Investment and the Costs of Debt and Equity Financing AbstractWe document that cash flow volatility is associated with lower levels of investment in capital expenditures, R&D, and advertising. Thus, firms do not turn to external capital markets to fully cover cash-flow short falls. Consistent with this co nclusion, we document that the sensitivity of investment to cash flow volatility is greater for firms with higher costs of capital market access. In addition, cash flow and earnings volatility are associated with these higher costs. Thus, v olatility not only increases the likelihood that a firm will need to access capital markets, it also increases the costs of doing so.