Integración proporcional vs método de la participación: análisis de valoración y capacidad predictiva

Abstract

RESUMENLa sustitución de la NIC 31 por la NIIF 11, que ha entrado en vigor el 1 de enero de 2013, implica un cambio sustancial en cuanto al método permitido para consolidar las empresas multigrupo. Desaparece la posibilidad de optar por el método de integración proporcional o método de la participación quedando éste último como única alternativa. En este contexto, nos planteamos cómo afecta tal cambio a la calidad de la información contable de las empresas partícipes en empresas multigrupo. A partir del método de elegido por cada empresa española en el periodo 2005-2010, se analiza cuál de los dos procedimientos refleja mejor la imagen fiel de la empresa, conduce a mayor relevancia de la información contable y logra mejores predicciones de beneficios. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que ambos métodos muestran similar capacidad predictiva y valorativa. Por tanto, no existe suficiente evidencia que apoye una mayor utilidad del método de integración proporcional.Classification JEL: G14; G32; M41. Palabras claves: método de consolidación, empresas multigrupo, valoración, predicciones de beneficios ABSTRACTThe replacement of NIC 31 by NIIF 11, that becomes effective on a compulsory basis on January 1 st , 2013, implies a substantial change in the procedures allowed for the consolidation of the joint ventures.If so far these companies were able to choose voluntarily between proportionate consolidation and the equity method, from now on the first method will be eliminated requiring only the second one. In this context, we bring up if such policy change would lead into a decline in the quality of the accounting information disclosed by Spanish joint ventures in the period 2005-2010, analyzing which of the above mentioned methods better shows the true image of the firm, leads to more relevant accounting information and allows better earnings forecasts. Our results show that there is no evidence in favour of the use of the proportionate consolidation method. Both methods achieve similar forecasting and valuation ability.Classification JEL: G14; G32; M41.

Does the interaction between the accounting method choice and disclosure affect financial analysts’ information environment? The case of joint ventures under IAS 31

“…Nevertheless, on the whole we cannot state that the accounting method affects the information environment measures, no matter if firms disclose information or not. In summary, our results do not suggest there are differences between the two methods allowed in IAS 31 to include a JV in the consolidated accounts of the venturer, and, in line with those of Espinosa et al (2015), support the simplification achieved by imposing a unique method.…”

“…Based on a sample of French firms that use PC, Lourenço et al (2012) find that the market views the assets and liabilities of the JV similarly to those of the venturer. Finally, looking at the Spanish listed firms, Espinosa et al (2015) conclude that the two alternative methods, EM and PC, have similar valuation relevance and ability to forecast earnings. These papers use exclusively historical accounting data, but our study employs financial analyst forecasts, and does not rely on specific models (that impose severe conditions on the way prices impose accounting figures).…”

“…In some way, this paper could be seen as an extension of another Spanish study, Espinosa et al (2015), which does not detect differences in the value relevance of both methods, nor in its ability to predict future equity values and earnings. Interestingly, these authors suggest that the IAS 31 disclosure requirements have not been widely followed by Spanish firms during 2005-2010, which provides a natural setting to examine whether the analysts' information environment is affected by the accounting method in the absence of footnote disclosure.…”

“…Moreover, based on prior studies (e.g. Hodgdon et al 2008, Tsalavoutas 2011, Mısırlıoğlu et al 2013, Espinosa et al 2015, we acknowledge firms might not disclose all required information. In particular, Espinosa et al…”

“…Exchange. Having downloaded their financial reports and read them carefully, we were able to identify which firms had invested in the selected type of JV; therefore, as in Espinosa et al (2015), the initial sample of 147 firms was reduced to 100 firms. Given that not all firms had JVs each year, and for some firms there was no information for the six-year analysis period (while some became listed during the period, others ceased), the number of firm-year observations was reduced to 502.…”