“西交財(cái)會(huì)前沿論壇”2017年第7期

報(bào)告人：WILLIAM (BILL) M. CREADY

講座時(shí)間：2017年5月22日上午9:30

地點(diǎn)：管院315會(huì)議室

歡迎各位老師和同學(xué)光臨

WILLIAM (BILL) M. CREADY簡歷：

WILLIAM (BILL) M. CREADY是UT Dallas大學(xué)商學(xué)院會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)資深教授兼系主任，他已經(jīng)在The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal ofAccounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research等頂級(jí)學(xué)術(shù)期刊上發(fā)表論文十幾篇。

講座的內(nèi)容摘要如下：

Dichev and Tang (2008) provide initialevidence on the degree to which expenses are appropriately matched withrevenues in the population of larger Compustatcovered firms. They approach the issue from the perspective that expenses areadvanced to produce revenues. Conceptually, however, matching is defined as theidentification of expenses attributable to recognized revenues. That is,expense recognition depends on revenue recognition, rather than revenues beingderived from expenses. In this analysis, we revisit the core questionsconsidered in Dichev and Tang regarding matching efficacy over time as well asmatching’s relations with earnings variability and persistence employingmeasures consistent with this conceptual notion that expense is matched torevenue. Our alternative measures portray a somewhat different picture thanthat conveyed by the primary measure employed by Dichev and Tang. Our analysisindicates that a sizable decline in matching has taken place since the turn ofthe century. The decline in this period for their measure is comparativelymodest. We also find only limited evidence of a decline in matching prior tothe turn of the century, while their metric suggests that matching declinedsubstantially between 1980 and 1994. We also find that, in the cross-section,matching is negatively rather than positively related to earnings persistence.Finally, our analysis indicates that prior to the early 1980s, expenses are, onaverage, commonly over-matched to revenues.