Search results

This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures.

Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures.

This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

This article examines compliance and disclosure interpretations issued by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in May 2016 that provide guidance to SEC-reporting companies on how they can use financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in a manner that complies with SEC rules governing the presentation of non-GAAP measures in SEC filings and other public communications.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the new interpretive guidance in the context of the increasing use of non-GAAP financial measures by SEC-reporting companies and the SEC’s concern that some companies have been using non-GAAP measures inappropriately to present a materially different picture of their operating performance than investors can discern from financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, a relatively permissive SEC attitude towards the use of non-GAAP measures in recent years has emboldened some companies to increase their reliance on non-GAAP measures in a manner the SEC views as inconsistent with its rules. The SEC staff’s new guidance signals a renewed focus by the SEC on compliance with its requirements concerning the nature of permissible non-GAAP measures and the ways in which companies should present those measures.

This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure requirement from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether formally disclosing an earnings before interests, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) number reduces the information asymmetry between managers and investors beyond the release of GAAP earnings. The paper also assess if EBITDA disclosure enhances the value relevance and the predictive ability of earnings.

The authors explore the interface between GAAP and non-GAAP reporting as well as the impact of corporate governance on the quality of non-GAAP measures.

Results suggest that EBITDA reporting is associated with greater analyst following and with less information asymmetry. The authors also document that EBITDA reporting enhances the positive relationship between earnings and stock pricing as well as future cash flows. Moreover, it appears that corporate governance substitutes for EBITDA reporting for stock markets. Hence, EBITDA helps market participants to better assess earnings valuation when a firm’s governance is weak. Inversely, when governance is strong, releasing EBITDA information has a much smaller impact on the earnings-stock price relation.

The authors revisit the issue of how corporate governance relates with earnings quality by considering the potentially confounding effect of EBITDA reporting; it appears that such reporting substitutes for governance in moderating the relation between governance and earnings quality.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize insights from existing research on the disclosure of non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings, from an international point of view, and to suggest several avenues for future research in this area.

In conjunction with the analysis of existing research, the paper examines how different regulators and accounting standard setters have approached the topic of non-GAAP earnings disclosure.

The paper shows how non-GAAP earnings have been found to be more informative than GAAP earnings in several scenarios (countries where non-GAAP disclosures are compulsory, countries where these disclosures are voluntary but regulated and countries where they are not regulated). However, in certain circumstances, these disclosures may also mislead investors. Corporate governance mechanisms can curb managers’ opportunistic use of these measures.

The paper provides the growing number of academic researchers in this emerging area with a foundation and agenda upon which they can build their research.

It has been two decades since the first academic paper shone a spotlight on non-GAAP earnings. The past 20 years of research investigates concerns over the misuse of these disclosures and resulted in some significant changes to accounting and reporting standards across the globe. This paper aims to document the history of non-GAAP reporting and outline the emerging themes of the now matured practice of non-GAAP reporting.

This systematic literature review searches two popular databases to identify the academic publications relating to non-GAAP reporting between 2002 and 2022. The paper uses bibliographic mapping to present the key statistics of the non-GAAP reporting field of research.

The non-GAAP reporting environment started out as the “wild West’ but, through regulation and public awareness, emerged as an important supplement to the traditional outputs of financial reporting. Current consensus is recent non-GAAP earnings are informative to users but there is lack of research into qualitative non-GAAP disclosures and the vast body of archival research needs triangulating with more experimental studies.

This paper contributes to the literature by documenting the past 20 years of non-GAAP reporting and identifying the important existing and emerging research areas concerning non-GAAP earnings disclosures.

Since the implementation of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC has adopted new rules for certifications and proposed many other new rules. The proposals cover financial experts, codes of ethics, internal controls, improper influence of audits, off‐balance‐sheet transactions, non‐GAAP financial information, and trades during pension blackout periods. Among the specific requirements of the new rules are that: (1) an issuer’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer certify the contents of the issuer’s quarterly and annual reports; (2) financial experts on audit committees be disclosed; (3) codes of ethics be disclosed; (4) internal control reports be included in annual reports; (5) officers and directors be prohibited from fraudulently influencing the auditor of financial statements; (6) a separately captioned subsection of the MD&A explain an issuer’s off‐balance‐sheet arrangements; (7) Non‐GAAP financial measures be clearly explained; and (8) officers and directors be prohibited from buying or selling equity securities acquired in connection with employment when other employees are “blocked out” from trading in their individual pension accounts.

This paper aims to examine motivations for the reporting of generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP)-adjusted earnings by New Zealand companies.

The study uses multivariate analysis of data from New Zealand company annual reports for the period from 2004 to 2012.

Evidence suggests that management of some New Zealand firms are motivated to use GAAP-adjusted earnings to provide a more favourable impression of earnings. However, across firms, these adjusted earnings provide a better predictor of future earnings and provide more value-relevant information to the market than GAAP earnings. Thus, a desire to disclose a more accurate indicator of permanent earnings appears to be a strong factor in the reporting of GAAP-adjusted earnings.

The study uses firms listed on the New Zealand share market. The number of firms examined is small, but we compensate by studying the entire population, thus avoiding sampling issues. The results suggest that New Zealand’s regulatory response of recommending guidelines for reporting alternative earnings measures is appropriate.

The study contributes to the literature on the relationship between reporting statutory earnings and non-GAAP earnings. It uses a period that includes three major events in the New Zealand economy and reporting environment: the adoption of international financial reporting standards, a change in tax law and the global financial crisis. Recognition of these events allows us to better interpret the GAAP-adjusted reporting practices taken by managers.

This study aims to assess if the voluntary reporting of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), a widely used non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) measure, has effects on information asymmetry and value relevance and how the adjustments to GAAP earnings made to derive it contribute to these effects. This study focuses on firms from two countries with contrasting institutional settings, Canada and France.

Relying on multivariate analyses and using Heckman’s procedure to address the sample self-selection issue, this study first estimates the likelihood of a firm to report adjusted EBITDA. Then, this study examines if adjusted EBITDA, as well as the adjustments made to GAAP earnings to derive adjusted EBITDA (adjustments), affect a firm’s information asymmetry and its value. These adjustments are essentially GAAP-grounded items that are discarded by management to derive non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA. The dependent variables are share price volatility, as a proxy for information asymmetry, alongside market-to-book and stock market return as indicators of value.

In terms of the used sample, results suggest that Canadian firms are much more likely to report adjusted EBITDA than French firms. Chief executive officer (CEO) attributes (CEO power) appears to increase such likelihood. Moreover, for both Canadian and French firms, adjusted EBITDA is associated with reduced stock market volatility, an indication of lower information asymmetry, as well as higher market-to-book and returns, suggesting value relevance. The results also indicate that investors view the adjustments to GAAP earnings made by management to derive adjusted EBITDA as not value relevant (similar to noise). The GAAP-grounded elements that management discard to derive adjusted EBITDA actually increase information asymmetry.

This study adds to prior research on the interface between a CEO attributes and governance and non-GAAP reporting. This study also provides evidence that, despite very different institutional settings, non-GAAP reporting conveys relevant information to capital markets’ participants in both France and Canada. Hence, a country’s institutional setting may have a differential impact on the disclosure choice but not on the resulting value relevance of such disclosure. Finally, this study extends the non-GAAP literature by examining the value relevance of a widely used yet under-researched measure, adjusted EBITDA.

This paper aims to examine the characteristics of firms that voluntary disclose generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP)-compliant statements of income, statement of cash flows (SCF) and balance sheet (BS) concurrently with quarterly earnings releases. Cardinal motivation of the paper stems from the increasing demand over the past decade by professional analysts and the Securities and Exchange Commission for concurrent disclosure of GAAP-compliant financial statements with earnings’ announcements.

Using hand-collected archival data, a random sample was identified as disclosing GAAP-compliant SCF and BS with their quarterly earnings releases compared to a control sample identified as non-GAAP-compliant disclosing firms during the 36-month period of 2009-2011, and several hypotheses are tested to determine managements’ incentives to disclose GAAP-compliant versus non-GAAP financials with their earnings releases.

The results in this paper suggest that debt financing, corporate governance, operating performance, earnings volatility, industry membership (such as technology and more research and development-intensive) and complexity of operations (number of segments) are significant characteristics of firms electing to concurrently disclose GAAP-compliant SCF and BS with earnings releases.

The findings discussed in this paper are of special interest to financial reporting policymakers, financial analysts, firm managers and stakeholders and academics.

The voluntary disclosure literature on quarterly earnings releases is extended by differentiating between GAAP-compliant and non-GAAP-compliant voluntary disclosers. The specific findings of this study may provide valuable input to policymakers as they study prevailing voluntary disclosure rules and practices.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the possibility of South African companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) using adjusted earnings as a part of an impression expectation management strategy focused on demonstrating how reported earnings measures meeting or beating analysts’ earnings forecasts.

A multiple response analysis approach is used. Earnings adjustments are coded according to a defined typology and assessed for their status as either valid or invalid. The number of occurrences of adjusted earnings measures over a five year period (2010-2014) meeting or beating analyst forecasts is calculated.

The use of adjusted earnings by JSE listed companies is a common occurrence. There is evidence to suggest that this is used part of an impression expectation management strategy. Most of the adjustments are invalid. When otherwise valid adjustments are used in a particular year, these are frequently repeated, and when adjusted earnings are reported, these normally exceed analysts’ forecasts.

The paper is based on a relatively small sample from a single jurisdiction and limited time period. Nevertheless, the findings point to the need to revisit how financial performance is measured and reported, evaluate additional regulation to protect investors and understand in more detail exactly how and why companies use adjusted earnings as an impression expectation management tool.

The paper adds to the limited body of research on performance reporting outside of the USA and Europe. It also examines the use of adjusted earnings in a unique setting where, in addition to IFRS numbers, companies are required to report a mandatory adjusted earnings figure (headline earnings).