{"title":"Do analysts’ gross margin forecasts influence manager's decisions to recognize inventory losses?","authors":"Nusrat Jahan, Padmakumar Sivadasan","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accounting standards require firms to write down their inventory when its market value (or net realizable value) drops below cost. Recognizing inventory write‐downs decreases gross margins and increases scrutiny of managers’ inventory management practices. Further, it is difficult for market participants to assess inventory balances. Therefore, managers often delay recognizing inventory losses. Compared with other analysts, analysts who issue disaggregated gross margin (GM) forecasts evaluate a firm's inventories more closely, which should motivate managers to recognize expected inventory losses. Consistent with this prediction, managers’ likelihood of recognizing an expected inventory loss increases as more analysts provide GM forecasts. However, the number of analysts issuing standalone earnings per share (EPS) or EPS and other disaggregated forecasts is not associated with inventory loss recognition. We address endogeneity concerns by documenting that firms are less likely to recognize an expected inventory loss after exogenous factors cause analysts to stop issuing GM forecasts for the firm. We contribute significantly to the literature by showing that analysts' GM forecasts are closely associated with managers’ timely inventory loss recognition. This insight bridges the gap between anecdotal evidence, which suggests analysts assess inventory carefully, and scholarly research indicating that analysts' forecasts may not fully capture the effects of inventory changes. Our findings suggest that managers act as if inventory management practices are more strictly monitored only when analysts issue GM forecasts.","PeriodicalId":48106,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12828","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Accounting standards require firms to write down their inventory when its market value (or net realizable value) drops below cost. Recognizing inventory write‐downs decreases gross margins and increases scrutiny of managers’ inventory management practices. Further, it is difficult for market participants to assess inventory balances. Therefore, managers often delay recognizing inventory losses. Compared with other analysts, analysts who issue disaggregated gross margin (GM) forecasts evaluate a firm's inventories more closely, which should motivate managers to recognize expected inventory losses. Consistent with this prediction, managers’ likelihood of recognizing an expected inventory loss increases as more analysts provide GM forecasts. However, the number of analysts issuing standalone earnings per share (EPS) or EPS and other disaggregated forecasts is not associated with inventory loss recognition. We address endogeneity concerns by documenting that firms are less likely to recognize an expected inventory loss after exogenous factors cause analysts to stop issuing GM forecasts for the firm. We contribute significantly to the literature by showing that analysts' GM forecasts are closely associated with managers’ timely inventory loss recognition. This insight bridges the gap between anecdotal evidence, which suggests analysts assess inventory carefully, and scholarly research indicating that analysts' forecasts may not fully capture the effects of inventory changes. Our findings suggest that managers act as if inventory management practices are more strictly monitored only when analysts issue GM forecasts.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting exists to publish high quality research papers in accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. The interfaces are relevant in many areas such as financial reporting and communication, valuation, financial performance measurement and managerial reward and control structures. A feature of JBFA is that it recognises that informational problems are pervasive in financial markets and business organisations, and that accounting plays an important role in resolving such problems. JBFA welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Nonetheless, theoretical papers should yield novel testable implications, and empirical papers should be theoretically well-motivated. The Editors view accounting and finance as being closely related to economics and, as a consequence, papers submitted will often have theoretical motivations that are grounded in economics. JBFA, however, also seeks papers that complement economics-based theorising with theoretical developments originating in other social science disciplines or traditions. While many papers in JBFA use econometric or related empirical methods, the Editors also welcome contributions that use other empirical research methods. Although the scope of JBFA is broad, it is not a suitable outlet for highly abstract mathematical papers, or empirical papers with inadequate theoretical motivation. Also, papers that study asset pricing, or the operations of financial markets, should have direct implications for one or more of preparers, regulators, users of financial statements, and corporate financial decision makers, or at least should have implications for the development of future research relevant to such users.