Financial Statement Placement, Note Disclosure, and Value Relevance: Evidence from ASU 2011-05
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We examine whether note disclosures play an enhanced role in value relevance when financial statement line-item placement becomes more uniformly prominent. We consider ASU 2011-05, which prohibited reporting other comprehensive income (OCI) in the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. We document that firms changing OCI placement exhibited incrementally positive changes in OCI value relevance, in line with the FASB’s goal of raising OCI prominence. This finding resolves the unexpected findings of early studies, which documented an incremental decrease in OCI value relevance. We then find that this effect is enhanced when OCI-related note disclosures are more specific, numeric, readable, or shorter in length. Collectively, our findings suggest that not only does the prominence of financial statement placement enhance the value relevance of OCI, but also that the salience of accompanying note disclosures further amplifies this effect, indicating the dual importance of clear financial statement presentation and informative footnote disclosure. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; G14.
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".