Recent accounting research employs an asymmetric timeliness measure to test the hypothesis that reported accounting earnings are ''conservative.'' This research design regresses earnings on stock returns to examine whether ''bad'' news is incorporated into earnings on a more timely basis than ''good'' news. We identify properties of the asymmetric timeliness estimation procedure that will result in biases in the test statistics except under very restrictive conditions that are rarely met in typical empirical settings. Using data series that are devoid of asymmetric timeliness in reported earnings, we show how these biases result in evidence consistent with conservatism. We conclude that the biased test statistics inherent in the asymmetric timeliness research design preclude using this method to measure conservatism; that these biases are irresolvable as they originate in the test's specification; and that studies employing asymmetric timeliness tests cannot be interpreted as providing evidence of conservatism.

No abstract

The AICPA Special Committee on Financial Reporting has urged disclosure of relevant forward‐looking information on risks and opportunities to supplement conventional financial statements. We conduct a laboratory market experiment to assess the effects of such disclosures on capital allocation decisions. We develop two sets of competing hypotheses regarding how capital markets react to supplemental disclosures. One set is based on the assumption of semi‐strong market efficiency, while the other posits that the bounded rationality of individual traders leads to inefficient market prices. We find that explicit disclosure of management’s best estimate of an uncertain quantity improves market efficiency, even though this disclosure is redundant with information in financial statements. Second, we find disclosure of an upper bound of management’s estimate has the potential to bias security prices upward, while informationally equivalent disclosure of both upper and lower bounds removes this bias. These results suggest that experimental market reactions to these supplemental disclosures are inconsistent with market efficiency. Supplemental analyses of individuals’ price predictions and trading behavior support our conclusion that inefficiencies are at least partially attributable to individual information processing biases.

No abstract