We review and evaluate the methods commonly used in the accounting literature to correct for cross-sectional and time-series dependence. While much of the accounting literature studies settings in which variables are cross-sectionally and serially correlated, we find that the extant methods are not robust to both forms of dependence. Contrary to claims in the literature, we find that the Z2 statistic and Newey-West corrected Fama-MacBeth standard errors do not correct for both cross-sectional and time-series dependence. We show that extant methods produce misspecified test statistics in common accounting research settings, and that correcting for both forms of dependence substantially alters inferences reported in the literature. Specifically, several findings in the implied cost of equity capital literature, the cost of debt literature, and the conservatism literature appear not to be robust to the use of well-specified test statistics.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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. We thank David Aboody, Tom Lys, Robert Magee, Sarah McVay, Richard Sloan (editor), workshop participants at the American Accounting Association annual meeting, especially discussant Valentina Zamora, the Financial Accounting and Reporting Section midyear meeting, especially discussant Melissa Lewis, the Kellogg School of Management, Lancaster University, Santa Clara University, Stanford University, and University of Southern California, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. We thank our respective schools for financial support.Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1681144 Why Do Pro Forma and Street Earnings Not Reflect Changes in GAAP?Evidence from SFAS 123R AbstractThis 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 such exclusion results in an earnings measure that better predicts future firm performance. In contrast, we find that analysts exclude the expense from earnings forecasts when the exclusion increases earnings' predictive ability for future performance, and 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...