Advertisement

Regulatory oversight and trade-offs in earnings management: evidence from pension accounting

  • James P. NaughtonEmail author
Article

Abstract

I develop approaches that quantify the use of discretion for the three main assumptions used for the financial reporting of defined benefit pension obligations: the expected return, the discount rate, and the compensation rate. I then apply these approaches to two regulatory events that affected a different subset of these three assumptions. Across both settings, my analyses indicate that firms reduced discretion in response to regulatory scrutiny—but only in those assumptions targeted by the regulatory event. In contrast, I find that firms increased the use of discretion in the other assumptions, consistent with a substitution effect. I also find that the use of discretion in the discount rate and compensation rate are approximately two to three times more effective at changing reported earnings than the use of discretion in the expected return. Collectively, my analyses highlight the interdependence of the three main pension assumptions and the relative weakness of the expected return as an earnings management tool.

Keywords

Pension accounting Disclosure Earnings management SFAS132 Regulatory oversight 

JEL classification

G3 J32 M41 M43 M44 M45 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I appreciate helpful suggestions and comments from Craig Chapman, Joe Comprix, Dain Donelson, Joseph Gerakos (discussant), Wayne Guay, Paul Healy, Bob Kaplan, Michael Kimbrough, Asis Martinez-Jerez, Dave Maber, Greg Miller, Krishna Palepu, Eddie Riedl, Eugene Soltes, Beverly Walther, Clare Wang, Joe Weber, Gui Woolston, and seminar participants at Harvard, Northwestern, Columbia, NYU, and Duke. I would also like to thank Brigitte Madrian, Chris Allen, Blake Bowler and two anonymous consulting firms for providing data and research assistance. I gratefully acknowledge funding from the Deloitte Foundation.

References

  1. Adams, B., Frank, M. M., & Perry, T. (2011). The potential for inflating earnings through the expected rate of return on defined benefit pension plan assets. Accounting Horizons, 25(3), 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir, E., Guan, Y., & Oswald, D. (2010). The effect of pension accounting on corporate pension asset allocation. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(2), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstresser, D., Desai, M., & Rauh, J. (2006). Earnings manipulations, pension assumptions, and managerial investment decisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1), 157–195.Google Scholar
  4. Burgstahler, D., & Dichev, I. (1997). Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, C. & J. Naughton (2018). Pension risk and equity returns. Northwestern University, working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Chuk, E. (2013). Economic consequences of mandated accounting disclosures: Evidence from pension accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comprix, J., & Muller, K., III. (2011). Pension plan accounting estimates and the freezing of defined benefit pension plans. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1-2), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Sweeney, A. P. (1995). Detecting earnings management. Accounting Review, 70, 193–225.Google Scholar
  9. Fried, A., Davis-Friday, P. Y., & Davis, H. (2014). The impact of duration on management’s discount rate choice. Research in Accounting Regulation, 26, 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher, D. M. 2013. Remarks at Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals. http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539700301#.U49qkPldV8E.
  11. Gron, A., & Madrian, B. (2004). Matching Form 5500 filings with Compustat and CRSP. Working paper, Northwestern University and University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Healy, P. M., & Wahlen, J. M. (1999). A review of the earnings management literature and its implications for standard setting. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iliev, P. (2010). The effect of SOX section 404: Costs, earnings quality and stock prices. Journal of Finance, 65(3), 1163–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin, L., Merton, R., & Bodie, Z. (2006). Do a firm’s equity returns reflect the risk of its pension plan? Journal of Financial Economics, 81(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, D. A. (2013). Changes in the funded status of retirement plans after the adoption of SFAS no. 158: Economic improvement or balance sheet management? Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 1099–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karpoff, J. M., Lee, D. S., & Martin, G. S. (2008). The cost to firms of cooking the books. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43, 581–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitt, A. (1998). The numbers game. New York: NYU Center for Law and Business. http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch220.txt.
  18. McNichols, M., & Wilson, G. P. (1988). Studies on management's ability and incentives to affect the timing and magnitude of accounting accruals. Journal of Accounting Research, 26, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, G. (2006). The press as a watchdog for accounting fraud. Journal of Accounting Research, 44(5), 1001–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stigler, G. J. (1964). Public regulation of the securities markets. Journal of Business, 37(2), 117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kellogg School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations