A Re-Examination of the “Informational” Role of Non-GAAP Earnings in the Post-Reg G Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we utilize a unique quarterly dataset of non-GAAP earnings to re-examine the “informational” role of non-GAAP earnings from the perspective of value relevance and earnings predictability in the post-Reg G period. We find that non-GAAP earnings are more value relevant and can better predict future operating earnings of a firm compared to equivalent GAAP earnings. Additionally, we also find empirical evidence suggesting that the difference in the value relevance and earnings predictability between non-GAAP and equivalent GAAP earnings can vary across but cannot be completely mitigated by firm-level characteristics, such as the market value of equity, accruals quality, analyst coverage, and managerial ability of a firm. Moreover, our supplementary analysis reveals that the superior value relevance and predictive power of non-GAAP earnings persist even after the SEC’s release of the Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DI) in 2010. Overall, our empirical evidence suggests a superior “informational” role of non-GAAP earnings to equivalent GAAP earnings in terms of valuation and predictability on future operating performance in the post-Reg G period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".