CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.
-
Upload
cory-jones -
Category
Documents
-
view
246 -
download
0
Transcript of CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.
![Page 1: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CHAPTER 4DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES
![Page 2: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Competing Hypotheses
• EMH “No-effects” hypothesis
• Competing hypothesis “Mechanistic” hypothesis
![Page 3: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Competing Hypotheses (Cont’d)
• The No-Effects Hypothesis– CAPM: the market value of the firm is a
function of the firm’s expected future cash-flows and the expected rate of return
– Accounting change has no implications for stock prices
• Unless it had implications for taxes
– Accounting change has to be unexpected by the market
![Page 4: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Competing Hypotheses (Cont’d)
• The Mechanistic Hypothesis– Changes in accounting procedures affect
stock prices even if those changes have no effect on the firm’s cash flows
– Assumption: accounting reports are the sole information on the firm
– Also called: “monopolistic hypothesis”, “functional fixation hypothesis”
![Page 5: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Discriminating between the Hypotheses
• 3 sets of accounting changes:– All accounting changes whether they affect
taxes or not– Accounting changes that do not affect taxes– Accounting changes that affect taxes
![Page 6: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Kaplan & Roll (1972)
• Investigate accounting changes that do not affect taxes– Accounting for investment tax credit
• From deferral method to flowthrough method
– Accounting for depreciation• From accelerated depreciation to straight-line
depreciation
![Page 7: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Kaplan & Roll (1972)(Cont’d)
• Methodology:– Calculate abnormal returns around the
earnings announcement week• Mechanistic hypothesis predicts: CAR > 0• No-effects hypothesis predicts: CAR = 0
![Page 8: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Kaplan & Roll (1972)(Cont’d)
• The Investment tax credit:– Abnormal rates of return > 0 for change
sample and = 0 for control sample.– Support the mechanistic hypothesis rather
than no-effect hypothesis
![Page 9: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Kaplan & Roll (1972)(Cont’d)
• The Depreciation switchback:– Abnormal rates of return = 0.– Support the no-effect hypothesis.– Contradict with results for investment tax
credit.
![Page 10: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study
• Two issues:– Specification of the hypotheses tested– Event study methodology
![Page 11: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested– The concentration is on the competing
hypothesis – the hypothesis that the market is misled
• Problem: Do not specify exactly when the stock price reacts to the earnings effect of an accounting change.
![Page 12: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested– Specifying the mechanistic hypothesis
• Kaplan & Roll (1972) fail to make powerful test when they use two-tail test on the abnormal returns
• Should be one tail: H0 = e0 < 0, Ha: e0 > 0
![Page 13: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested (Cont’d)– Specifying the mechanistic hypothesis
(Cont’d)• Another way to increase the power of test is to
calculate the earnings effect of the accounting change and then investigate the abnormal returns associated with the largest effects
• Kaplan & Roll use the 1st annual earnings number, which is not necessarily the first earnings disclosed using the changed accounting method
![Page 14: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested (Cont’d)– Testing the no-effect hypothesis
• The acceptance of EMH led early accounting researchers to accept readily no-effect hypothesis when it was not rejected
• There are infinite number of alternative hypotheses to the null hypothesis
![Page 15: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested (Cont’d)– Event study methodology
• There are two reasons to believe that the randomization of other variable has not been achieved in Kaplan & Roll: clustering and selection bias
![Page 16: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Methodological Issues in Kaplan & Roll (1972) Study (Cont’d)
• Specification of the hypotheses tested (Cont’d)– Event study methodology
• Clustering: investment tax credit changes occur in 1 year and depreciation switchback occur predominantly in 3 years and over represented in several industries
• Selection bias– When a sample is selected on the basis of one variable
and it is latter found that the sample differs from the population of observation on the basis of some other variable
![Page 17: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Ball (1972)
• Investigates all types of accounting changes
• Does not restrict his sample to changes that do not affect taxes
• He argues that under the “no-effects” hypothesis, accounting changes has no observable effects on the stock price at the time an accounting change is announced
![Page 18: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Reasons:– Changes in the optimal tax inventory method
are induced by changes in other variables affecting the manager’s decisions
– Tax effects are too small to be observed– The changes in other variables occur before
the accounting change enabling the market to predict the accounting change
![Page 19: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Sample:– Samples are relatively spread over the 14-
year period, reducing the clustering problem encountered by Kaplan and Roll
![Page 20: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Results:– Abnormal returns unadjusted for risk changes
for the whole sample• There appears to be no price change associated
with the earnings announcement consistent with the no-effects hypothesis
![Page 21: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Results:– Tests for risk changes and abnormal returns
adjusted for risk changes• Average estimated for switches to LIFO
increases• Lack of any stock price effect in month 0 is
consistent with the no-effects hypothesis
![Page 22: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Results:– Abnormal returns adjusted for risk changes
for particular accounting changes:• Stock price do not react to earnings changes that
result only from accounting changes that have no cash flow effect
![Page 23: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Ball (1972) (Cont’d)
• Like Kaplan & Roll, concentrates on testing the mechanistic hypothesis
• Fails to account for selection biases– Contemporaneous unexpected earnings
• A more powerful test using non zero stock price effect predictions– Changes in inventory methods because they
affect taxes
![Page 24: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Sunder (1973, 1975)
• Realizes the potential of the LIFO changes to discriminate between the two hypotheses (no effects and mechanistic)
![Page 25: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Sunder (1973, 1975) (Cont’d)
• Sample: Firms switching to LIFO and firms abandoning LIFO
• Results:– Observe abnormal price increases associated
with switches to LIFO
![Page 26: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Sunder (1973, 1975) (Cont’d)
• Problems:– Doesn’t identify the switch’s announcement
date and investigate the abnormal returns at that time.
– Has a clustering problem– Does not allow for the contemporaneous
earnings selection bias.
![Page 27: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Ricks (1982)
• Attempts to control for the unexpected increase in earnings associated with LIFO switches
![Page 28: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Biddle & Lindahl (1982)
• Results:– The larger the tax savings, the larger the
change in value of the firm– The larger the unexpected earnings, the
higher the value of the firm– Consistent with no-effects hypothesis
• Methodological problem: clustering (1974 changes)
![Page 29: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Economic Consequences
• Economic consequences: a concept that asserts that, despite the implications of efficient securities market theory, accounting policy choice can affect firm value
![Page 30: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Accounting Policy
• Accounting policy any accounting policy, not just one that affects a firm’s cash flows
![Page 31: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Economic Consequences & Efficient Market Theory
• Economic consequences the accounting policy will matter, despite the lack of cash flow effects
• Efficient market theory the change will not matter because future cash flows are not directly affected
![Page 32: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Economic Consequences
• Essentially, the notion of economic consequences is that firms’ accounting policies and changes in policies, matter– Matter to management– But if matter to management, accounting
policies matter to the investors
![Page 33: CHAPTER 4 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN COMPETING HYPOTHESES.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022081503/56649ed15503460f94bdf6b8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Economic Consequences
• Accounting policy choice is part of the firm’s overall need to minimize its cost of capital and other contracting costs