Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of reporting comprehensive income and other income through performance or equity statements on firms' earnings management through the selective sale of available-for-sale (AFS) securities. The objective is to explore how Canadian firms can improve transparency by altering managers' accounting behavior by switching from equity statements to income statements. The study used a difference-in-differences method in a quasi-experimental framework. The results showed that negative net income and post-period net income in performance statements can reduce realized gains and losses. Available-for-sale securities also affect these gains and losses in performance and equity statements. Single statement adopters only smooth earnings when net income is positive or when available-for-sale gains are large enough to offset negative earnings. Income statement (IS) adopters reduced earnings smoothing more than other treatment firms. Managers with less job security were found to be more likely to engage in earnings smoothing, and earnings smoothing decreased more during the pre-to-post period. Equity incentives reduced the tendency to smooth earnings, particularly in treatment firms with CEOs whose pay is more sensitive to stock price changes. Treatment firms outperform control firms in predicting future earnings using realized gains and losses on AFS securities per share. The findings suggest that firms manage earnings less effectively by selectively selling AFS securities when comprehensive income (CI) or other comprehensive income (OCI) is presented in performance statements. Firms win when earnings management is reduced because it reduces the informativeness of realized gains and losses on AFS securities. Managers will use more earnings management strategies as long as they have incentives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".