Search results

This paper empirically examines whether the order of liability and preferred stock accounts presented on the balance sheet is consistent with how the stock market values their riskiness.

This paper measures a firm’s riskiness with idiosyncratic risk and employs the first-difference design to test the relation between idiosyncratic risk and the order of current liabilities, noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock, respectively. Further, the paper tests whether operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors partition their sample based on the degree of financial distress and investigate whether the results differ between the two subsamples.

The paper finds that current liabilities are viewed as riskier than noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock is viewed as less risky than current and noncurrent liabilities, consistent with the ordering on the balance sheet. Further, the paper finds that operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors find that total liabilities and preferred stock (redeemable and convertible classes) are viewed as riskier for distressed firms than for nondistressed firms.

The authors thoroughly investigate the riskiness of several classes of claims and document that the classification of liabilities and preferred stock classes is relevant to common stockholders for assessing their associated risk.

Forecasting techniques improve supply chain resilience by ensuring that the correct parts are available when required. In addition, accurate forecasts conserve precious resources and money by avoiding new start contracts to produce unforeseen part requests, reducing labor intensive cannibalization actions and ensuring consistent transportation modality streams where changes incur cost. This study explores the effectiveness of the United States Air Force’s current flying hour-based demand forecast by comparing it with a sortie-based demand forecast to predict future spare part needs.

This study employs a correlation analysis to show that demand for reparable parts on certain aircraft has a stronger correlation to the number of sorties flown than the number of flying hours. The effect of using the number of sorties flown instead of flying hours is analyzed by employing sorties in the United States Air Force (USAF)’s current reparable parts forecasting model. A comparative analysis on D200 forecasting error is conducted across F-16 and B-52 fleets.

This study finds that the USAF could improve its reparable parts forecast, and subsequently part availability, by employing a sortie-based demand rate for particular aircraft such as the F-16. Additionally, our findings indicate that forecasts for reparable parts on aircraft with low sortie count flying profiles, such as the B-52 fleet, perform better modeling demand as a function of flying hours. Thus, evidence is provided that the Air Force should employ multiple forecasting techniques across its possessed, organically supported aircraft fleets. The improvement of the forecast and subsequent decrease in forecast error will be presented in the Results and Discussion section.

This study is limited by the data-collection environment, which is only reported on an annual basis and is limited to 14 years of historical data. Furthermore, some observations were not included because significant data entry errors resulted in unusable observations.

There are few studies addressing the time measure of USAF reparable component failures. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies that analyze spare component demand as a function of sortie numbers and compare the results of forecasts made on a sortie-based demand signal to the current flying hour-based approach to spare parts forecasting. The sortie-based forecast is a novel methodology and is shown to outperform the current flying hour-based method for some aircraft fleets.

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.