MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121304596 · doi:10.2308/accr-10094

Accounting Adjustments and the Valuation of Financial Statement Note Information in 10-K Filings

2011· article· en· W3121304596 on OpenAlexafffund
Gus De Franco, M.H. Franco Wong, Yibin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFinancial statementValuation (finance)AccountingEquity (law)Financial statement analysisAccounting information systemStock (firearms)BusinessFinancial ratioActuarial scienceEconomicsAuditPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We examine the valuation of financial statement note information at the time of 10-K filings. We find that stock returns around 10-K filings are positively related to accounting adjustments calculated from financial statement note information. We further document that the likelihood of equity analysts issuing a report and updating their target price estimates at the 10-K dates is increasing in the magnitude of the adjustments. Those analysts who do update their target prices at this time revise their estimates consistent with the sign and magnitude of the adjustments. These findings are consistent with financial statement users utilizing financial statement note information to make accounting adjustments, thereby incorporating this information into stock prices. JEL Classifications: G14, G29, M40, M41, M44. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources identified in the article.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Accounting ReviewSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207