将公司收入酌情分配给各部门

Qian Wang , Michael Ettredge
{"title":"将公司收入酌情分配给各部门","authors":"Qian Wang ,&nbsp;Michael Ettredge","doi":"10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The SEC continues to view companies' segment disclosures, including segment earnings, as needing improvement. Under a controversial provision of FAS 131, the sum of a company's segment earnings need not equal corporate net income. We refer to the difference between summed segment earnings and corporate-level income, when it exists, as the Gap. This study examines why Gaps exist. We find that the existence and direction of Gaps appear to reflect both reporting decisions intended to better reflect segment operating results and reporting incentives to obscure differences in profitability across segments. Gaps created for the former reason are shown to provide useful information to investors. We also find that summed segment earnings are, on average, more useful than corporate earnings (i.e. more persistent, predictable and informative) when there are negative Gaps (aggregated segment earnings exceed comparable corporate earnings), but less useful, on average, when positive Gaps are observed. On balance the evidence suggests that the FASB's decision in FAS 131 to allow segment-related income Gaps was justified.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101074,"journal":{"name":"Research in Accounting Regulation","volume":"27 1","pages":"Pages 1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.001","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discretionary allocation of corporate income to segments\",\"authors\":\"Qian Wang ,&nbsp;Michael Ettredge\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The SEC continues to view companies' segment disclosures, including segment earnings, as needing improvement. Under a controversial provision of FAS 131, the sum of a company's segment earnings need not equal corporate net income. We refer to the difference between summed segment earnings and corporate-level income, when it exists, as the Gap. This study examines why Gaps exist. We find that the existence and direction of Gaps appear to reflect both reporting decisions intended to better reflect segment operating results and reporting incentives to obscure differences in profitability across segments. Gaps created for the former reason are shown to provide useful information to investors. We also find that summed segment earnings are, on average, more useful than corporate earnings (i.e. more persistent, predictable and informative) when there are negative Gaps (aggregated segment earnings exceed comparable corporate earnings), but less useful, on average, when positive Gaps are observed. On balance the evidence suggests that the FASB's decision in FAS 131 to allow segment-related income Gaps was justified.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Accounting Regulation\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.001\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Accounting Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Accounting Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

美国证券交易委员会继续认为公司的部门披露,包括部门收益,需要改进。根据《会计准则第131号》(FAS 131)一项有争议的条款,公司的分部盈利总额不一定等于公司净利润。我们将分部总收益与公司一级收入之间的差额(如果存在的话)称为差距。本研究探讨了差距存在的原因。我们发现差距的存在和方向似乎既反映了旨在更好地反映部门经营业绩的报告决策,也反映了掩盖部门之间盈利能力差异的报告激励。由前一个原因造成的差距为投资者提供了有用的信息。我们还发现,平均而言,当存在负差距(总部门收益超过可比公司收益)时,汇总部门收益比公司收益更有用(即更持久、可预测和信息量更大),但平均而言,当观察到正差距时,汇总部门收益的用处较小。总的来说,证据表明FASB在FAS 131中允许与部门相关的收入差距的决定是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discretionary allocation of corporate income to segments

The SEC continues to view companies' segment disclosures, including segment earnings, as needing improvement. Under a controversial provision of FAS 131, the sum of a company's segment earnings need not equal corporate net income. We refer to the difference between summed segment earnings and corporate-level income, when it exists, as the Gap. This study examines why Gaps exist. We find that the existence and direction of Gaps appear to reflect both reporting decisions intended to better reflect segment operating results and reporting incentives to obscure differences in profitability across segments. Gaps created for the former reason are shown to provide useful information to investors. We also find that summed segment earnings are, on average, more useful than corporate earnings (i.e. more persistent, predictable and informative) when there are negative Gaps (aggregated segment earnings exceed comparable corporate earnings), but less useful, on average, when positive Gaps are observed. On balance the evidence suggests that the FASB's decision in FAS 131 to allow segment-related income Gaps was justified.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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