MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015930145 · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12606

The Commitment to <scp>Income‐Decreasing</scp> Accounting Choices as a Credible Signal to Reducing Information Asymmetry: The Case of Asset Revaluations*

2020· article· en· W3015930145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fábio Moraes da Costa, Carol Liu, Gina Cavalier Rosa, Samuel L. Tiras

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Accounting Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisFlorida International UniversityUniversity of WashingtonAmerican Accounting Association
KeywordsEconomicsEarningsPrecommitmentInformation asymmetryAsset (computer security)MicroeconomicsMonetary economicsFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Bagnoli and Watts (2005) proposed that a manager could reduce information asymmetry by choosing an income‐decreasing accounting choice that signals the firm's relatively good future prospects. A limitation in testing this theory is that most income‐decreasing accounting choices over time reverse such that aggregated earnings would be the same, regardless of the choice. One income‐decreasing accounting choice that never reverses is the choice of upward asset revaluation, where the resulting gains are recognized through other comprehensive income and reduce future earnings by increasing future depreciation expense. In the United Kingdom, prior to FRS15, firms had the option to upwardly revalue on a one‐time basis. FRS15, and subsequently International Financial Reporting Standards, however, require those firms that upwardly revalue precommit to revalue on a consistent basis. This precommitment sacrifices future reporting discretion, which, according to the aforementioned study, serves as a costly signal of a firm's relatively good future prospects that reduces information asymmetry. The choice not to upwardly revalue, therefore, serves as a signal of a firm's relatively poor future prospects and also reduces information asymmetry, but this choice does not require precommitment such that the reduction in information asymmetry would be less than the choice to precommit to upward revaluations. Using a propensity‐score matched‐pair design on a sample of United Kingdom firms to test our predictions during the period requiring precommitment, we find lower forecast dispersion, lower return volatility, and a lower cost of capital for firms that precommit to upward asset revaluations, relative to those firms that choose not to upwardly revalue their operating assets. Keywords: upward asset revaluations, income‐decreasing accounting choice, information asymmetry, precommitment

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Accounting ResearchSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207