Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 13, Issue 2–3, pp 411–417 | Cite as

Discussion of “inventory policy, accruals quality and information risk”

  • Per Olsson
Article
  • 363 Downloads

Abstract

Krishnan et al. (Review of Accouting Studies, 2008) investigate how the choice of LIFO versus FIFO affects firms’ accruals quality and cost of capital. The authors show that LIFO firms have better accruals quality and lower cost of capital than FIFO firms and that the cost of capital effect associated with the inventory valuation method is not subsumed by differences either in fundamental risk or accruals quality between LIFO and FIFO firms. This discussion is focused on key design choices and underlying assumptions.

Keywords

Inventory Accruals quality Information risk Cost of capital Asset pricing 

JEL Classifications

M41 G12 

References

  1. Aboody, D., Hughes, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Earnings quality, insider trading, and cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 43, 651–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allayannis, G., Rountree, B., & Weston, J. (2006). Earnings volatility, cash flow volatility, and firm value. University of Virginia and Rice University working paper.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, G. (2003). Perceptions of earnings quality and their association with the cost of equity capital. University of Texas working paper.Google Scholar
  4. Barth, M., Konchitchki, Y., & Landsman, W. (2006). Cost of capital and financial statement transparency. Stanford University, University of Southern California and University of North Carolina working paper.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, P., Chen, H., & Li, F. (2006). Firm specific information and the cost of equity capital. University of Chicago, University of British Columbia, and University of Michigan working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Bhattacharya, U., Daouk, H., & Welker, M. (2003). The world pricing of earnings opacity. The Accounting Review, 78, 641–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharya, N., & Ecker, F., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2007). Direct and mediated associations among earnings quality, information asymmetry and the cost of equity. Southern Methodist University and Duke University working paper.Google Scholar
  8. Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2005). Assessing alternative proxies for the expected risk premium. The Accounting Review, 81, 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2007). Are information attributes priced? University of Utah working paper.Google Scholar
  10. Botosan, C., Plumlee, M., & Xie, Y. (2004). The role of information precision in determining cost of equity capital. Review of Accounting Studies, 9, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaney, P., Cooil, B., & Jeter, D. (2007). A latent class model of earnings attributes. Vanderbilt University working paper.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, L., Dhaliwal D., & Trombley, M. (2007). The effect of fundamental risk on the market pricing of accruals quality. University of Arizona working paper.Google Scholar
  13. Claus, J., & Thomas, J. (2001). Equity premia as low as three percent? Evidence from analysts’ earnings forecasts for domestic and international stock markets. Journal of Finance, 56, 1629–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, D. (2006). Does information risk really matter? An analysis of the determinants and economic consequences of financial reporting quality. NYU working paper.Google Scholar
  15. Core, J., Guay, W., & Verdi, R. (2007). Is accruals quality a priced risk factor? Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Dechow, P., & Dichev, I. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(Supplement), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Easley, D., & O’Hara, M. (2004). Information and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 59, 1553–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Easton, P. (2004) PE ratios, PEG ratios, and estimating the implied expected rate of return on equity capital. The Accounting Review, 79, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ecker, F., Francis, J., Kim, I., Olsson P., & Schipper, K. (2006). A returns-based representation of earnings quality. The Accounting Review, 81, 749–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fama, E., & French, K. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance, 47, 427–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fama, E., & French, K. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fama, E., & French, K. (2006). Profitability, investment and average returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 82, 491–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fields, T., Lys, T., & Vincent, L. (2001). Empirical research on accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 255–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2004). Costs of equity and earnings attributes. The Accounting Review, 79, 967–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2005). The market pricing of accruals quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 295–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gebhardt, W., Lee, C., & Swaminathan, B. (2001). Toward an implied cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 39, 135–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray, P., Koh, P.-S., & Tong, Y. (2007). Accruals quality, information risk and cost of capital: Evidence from Australia. University of Queensland, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Nanyang Technological University working paper.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, J., Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2007). Information asymmetry, diversification and cost of capital. The Accounting Review, 82, 705–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, P., & Schwartz, E. (1988). The LIFO/FIFO choice: An asymmetric information approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 26, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jennings, R., Simko, P., & Thompson, R. (1996). Does LIFO inventory accounting improve the income statement at the expense of the balance sheet? Journal of Accounting Research, 34, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krishnan, G., Srinidhi, B., & Su, L. (2008). Inventory policy, accruals quality and information risk. Review of Accouting Studies (current issue).Google Scholar
  32. Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2007a). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(Supplement), 385–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2007b). Information asymmetry, information precision, and the cost of capital. University of Pennsylvania and University of Chicago working paper.Google Scholar
  34. Liu, M., & Wysocki, P. (2007). Cross-sectional determinants of information quality proxies and cost of capital measures. Pennsylvania State University and MIT working paper (version: July 2007).Google Scholar
  35. McNichols, M. (2002). Discussion of ‘The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors’. The Accounting Review, 77(Supplement), 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nichols, C. (2006). Fundamental or information risk? An analysis of the residual accrual volatility factor. Cornell University working paper.Google Scholar
  37. Ogneva, M. (2007). Accrual quality and expected returns: The importance of controlling for cash flow shocks. University of Southern California and Stanford University working paper.Google Scholar
  38. Ohlson, J., & Jüttner-Nauroth, B. (2005). Expected EPS and EPS growth as determinants of value. Review of Accounting Studies 10, 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Penman, S. (1991). An Evaluation of accounting rate-of-return. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 6, 233.Google Scholar
  40. Penman, S. (1996). The articulation of price-earnings ratios and market-to-book ratios and the evaluation of growth. Journal of Accounting Research, 34, 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sunder, S. (1973). Relationship between accounting changes and stock prices: problems of measurement and some empirical measurement. Journal of Accounting Research, 11(Supplement), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations