ABSTRACT

We critically examine two important methodological issues related to the estimation of discretionary accruals: the Jones models and the industry approach, both of which are considered the norms in the earnings management studies. We document that the original Jones models are the regression-through-the-origin (RTO) models. The RTO Jones models unduly overstate the significance of PPE and R², produce inconsistent coefficients and non-zero mean discretionary accruals. If we include the intercept in the models, then they lack power. We show that the RTO Jones models are theoretically flawed while their non-RTO variations are empirically flawed. We also address the issue of using the industry approach as a sole approach for the estimation of discretionary accruals. We document that the CFO approach outperforms the industry approach. Lastly, we document that the prediction error method outperforms the estimation error method in detecting earnings management.

摘要

我们批判性地研究了与估计可自由支配应计费用相关的两个重要方法问题：琼斯模型和行业方法，这两者都被认为是盈余管理研究中的规范。我们记录了原始的琼斯模型是回归原点 (RTO) 模型。RTO Jones 模型过分夸大了 PPE 和 R ^{2的重要性}，产生不一致的系数和非零均值可自由支配的应计项目。如果我们在模型中包含截距，那么它们就缺乏力量。我们表明，RTO Jones 模型在理论上存在缺陷，而它们的非 RTO 变化在经验上存在缺陷。我们还解决了使用行业方法作为估计可自由支配应计费用的唯一方法的问题。我们记录了 CFO 方法优于行业方法。最后，我们记录了预测误差方法在检测盈余管理方面优于估计误差方法。