2016
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2826159
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Print to Practice: XBRL Extension Use and Analyst Forecast Properties

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They find that the likelihood of restatements, internal control weaknesses and abnormal accruals are higher for firms with higher extension rate. Similarly, Kirk et al (2016) find a negative relation between abnormal extension rates and forecast accuracy, and a positive relation with forecast dispersion. All these studies suggest that extensions could be prejudicial to the quality of firms' reporting.…”
Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…They find that the likelihood of restatements, internal control weaknesses and abnormal accruals are higher for firms with higher extension rate. Similarly, Kirk et al (2016) find a negative relation between abnormal extension rates and forecast accuracy, and a positive relation with forecast dispersion. All these studies suggest that extensions could be prejudicial to the quality of firms' reporting.…”
Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Plumlee and Plumlee (2008), Boritz and No (2009), Debreceny et al (2010), Harris and Morsfield (2012), Cohen et al (2014), Basoglu and White (2015) and Hoffman (2017) describe XBRL data as error-prone and unreliable. Moreover, custom XBRL tags hinder cross-firm comparability (Boritz & No, 2009), are associated with larger analyst dispersion and larger earnings surprise (Felo et al, 2018;Kirk et al, 2016) and are used by managers to strategically obfuscate poor performance (Huang et al, 2019). 7 Harris and Morsfield (2012) find little usage of XBRL by analysts and professional investors because of the low reliability of XBRL data, excessive use of custom tags and complex and cumbersome technology underlying XBRL.…”
Section: Readability and 10-k File Sizementioning
confidence: 99%
“…research documenting errors and unnecessary extensions in XBRL filings (Debreceny et al [2010(Debreceny et al [ , 2011) and the associated adverse consequences in the capital markets (Li andNwaeze [2015, 2018], Kirk et al [2016]). Our paper provides direct evidence indicating that XBRL filings still inform investors' forecasts and investment decisions despite the data quality issues.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%