MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119863813 · doi:10.1177/0148558x20975597

When Is Depreciation Meaningful in Valuation? Changing Valuation Weights for U.S. REITs and Non-REITs

2020· article· en· W3119863813 on OpenAlexaff
Joy Begley, Sandra Chamberlain, Jeong Hwan Joo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting Auditing & Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsConsumption of fixed capitalEarnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortizationValuation (finance)Depreciation (economics)Book valueMonetary economicsCash flowEarningsFinancial economicsEconometricsMicroeconomicsFinanceCapital formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article regresses the market value of equity on pre-depreciation income and on depreciation expense for capital-intensive firms, referring to the coefficients from our model as valuation weights. The valuation weight on depreciation expense versus the weight on pre-depreciation income are compared, to detect depreciation biases, over time and across sectors. Our model shows that the valuation weights on depreciation expense change over time, if the persistence of the cash flow components of net income varies over time and if the accrual for depreciation is inflexible (e.g., straight-line depreciation). For Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), we find the valuation weight on pre-depreciation income increases with industry upturns, while the valuation weight on depreciation expense decreases during upturns. This result is contrasted to the nearly equal valuation weights for the cash flow and depreciation components of earnings for Resource firms (e.g., mines) over time. We conjecture this is because depletion accounting flexibly allows for “depreciation” to exhibit less bias than in other sectors. In summary, actual depreciation practices influence time variation in the valuation of depreciation, a point which has been underappreciated in prior studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Accounting Auditing & FinanceSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207