在组织分类中使用有形性的会计度量

IF 3.2 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Tiago Cardao-Pito, Julia A. Smith, João da Silva Ferreira
{"title":"在组织分类中使用有形性的会计度量","authors":"Tiago Cardao-Pito, Julia A. Smith, João da Silva Ferreira","doi":"10.3934/QFE.2021015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present an empirical test of a new measure to classify organizations according to the tangibility of product (output) flows delivered to customers. Our measure exhibits the empirical consequences of using standard industrial classifications to assume that firms within the same industry either share identical properties or sell homogeneous products. To illustrate the misleading findings that can result from these assumptions, we investigate whether prior literature on capital structure provides a sensible interpretation of organizational behavior, based as it often is on an assumption that all firms within a given industrial classification sell durable goods. In contrast to the product-market literature based upon the trade-off theory of capital structure, that would predict that firms selling physical goods will have proportionately less debt, in fact, when firms within industries are classified using our measure, we find to the contrary. Our intention is not to displace existing systems of industry classification but is, rather, to highlight the dangers of drawing conclusions from assuming homogeneity amongst firms which are formally registered within the same industry.","PeriodicalId":45226,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Finance and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using accounting measures of (in)tangibility for organizational classifications\",\"authors\":\"Tiago Cardao-Pito, Julia A. Smith, João da Silva Ferreira\",\"doi\":\"10.3934/QFE.2021015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We present an empirical test of a new measure to classify organizations according to the tangibility of product (output) flows delivered to customers. Our measure exhibits the empirical consequences of using standard industrial classifications to assume that firms within the same industry either share identical properties or sell homogeneous products. To illustrate the misleading findings that can result from these assumptions, we investigate whether prior literature on capital structure provides a sensible interpretation of organizational behavior, based as it often is on an assumption that all firms within a given industrial classification sell durable goods. In contrast to the product-market literature based upon the trade-off theory of capital structure, that would predict that firms selling physical goods will have proportionately less debt, in fact, when firms within industries are classified using our measure, we find to the contrary. Our intention is not to displace existing systems of industry classification but is, rather, to highlight the dangers of drawing conclusions from assuming homogeneity amongst firms which are formally registered within the same industry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Finance and Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Finance and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2021015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Finance and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2021015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

我们提出了一个新的衡量标准的实证检验,根据交付给客户的产品(产出)流的有形性对组织进行分类。我们的衡量标准展示了使用标准行业分类来假设同一行业内的公司要么拥有相同的财产,要么销售相同的产品的经验结果。为了说明这些假设可能导致的误导性发现,我们调查了先前关于资本结构的文献是否对组织行为提供了合理的解释,因为它通常基于一个假设,即给定行业分类中的所有公司都销售耐用品。与基于资本结构权衡理论的产品市场文献相反,该文献预测销售实物商品的公司的债务将按比例减少,事实上,当使用我们的衡量标准对行业内的公司进行分类时,我们发现情况恰恰相反。我们的意图不是取代现有的行业分类系统,而是强调从假设在同一行业内正式注册的公司之间的同质性得出结论的危险性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using accounting measures of (in)tangibility for organizational classifications
We present an empirical test of a new measure to classify organizations according to the tangibility of product (output) flows delivered to customers. Our measure exhibits the empirical consequences of using standard industrial classifications to assume that firms within the same industry either share identical properties or sell homogeneous products. To illustrate the misleading findings that can result from these assumptions, we investigate whether prior literature on capital structure provides a sensible interpretation of organizational behavior, based as it often is on an assumption that all firms within a given industrial classification sell durable goods. In contrast to the product-market literature based upon the trade-off theory of capital structure, that would predict that firms selling physical goods will have proportionately less debt, in fact, when firms within industries are classified using our measure, we find to the contrary. Our intention is not to displace existing systems of industry classification but is, rather, to highlight the dangers of drawing conclusions from assuming homogeneity amongst firms which are formally registered within the same industry.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
1.90%
发文量
14
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信