Skip to main content
Log in

Why Are Earnings Kinky? An Examination of the Earnings Management Explanation

  • Published:
Review of Accounting Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research has documented a “kink” in the earnings distribution: too few firms report small losses, too many firms report small profits. We investigate whether boosting of discretionary accruals to report a small profit is a reasonable explanation for this “kink.” Overall, we are unable to confirm that boosting of discretionary accruals is the key driver of the kink. We caution the use of the ratio of small profit firms to small loss firms as a measure of earnings management. We investigate and discuss a number of alternative explanations for the kink.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abarbanell, J. and R. Lehavy. (2003). “Biased Forecasts or Biased Earnings? The Role of Reported Earnings in Explaining Apparent Bias and Over/Underreaction in Analysts' Earnings Forecasts.” Working Paper, University of Michigan.

  • Baber, W. R. and S.-H. Kang. (2002). “The Impact of Split Adjusting and Rounding on Analysts' Forecast Error Calculations.” Accounting Horizons 16, 277-289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, C. C., M. P. Bauman and R. F. Halsey. (2001). “Do Firms Use the Deferred Tax Asset Valuation Allowance to Manage Earnings?” Journal of the American Tax Association 23, Supplement, 27-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, A., B. Ke and K. Petroni. (2002). “Earnings Management to Avoid Earnings Declines and Losses Across Publicly and Privately Held Banks.” The Accounting Review 77, 547-570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, M. T., S. A. Richardson and R. G. Sloan. (2001). “Do Analysts and Auditors Understand Information in Accruals?” Journal of Accounting Research 39, 45-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, M. T. and R. G. Sloan. (2002). “GAAP versus the Street: An Empirical Assessment of Two Alternative Definitions of Earnings.” Journal of Accounting Research 40, 41-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D. (2001). “A Temporal Analysis of Earnings Surprises: Profits versus Losses.” Journal of Accounting Research 39, 221-241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstahler, D. C. and I. D. Dichev. (1997a). “Earnings Management to Avoid Earnings Decreases and Losses.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 99-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstahler, D. C. and I. D. Dichev. (1997b). “Earnings, Adaptation and Equity Value.” The Accounting Review 72, 187-215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstahler, D. C. and M. J. Eames. (1998). “Management of Earnings and Analyst Forecasts.” Working Paper, University of Washington and Santa Clara University.

  • Carslaw, Charles A.P.N. (1988). “Anomalies in Income Numbers: Evidence of Goal Oriented Behavior.” The Accounting Review 63, 321-327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. J. (1999). “Earnings Management and Capital Market Misallocation.” Working Paper, University of Illinois.

  • Collins, D. W. and P. S. Hribar. (2002). “Errors in Estimating Accruals: Implications for Empirical Research.” Journal of Accounting Research 40, 105-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan and A. P. Sweeney. (1995). “Detecting Earnings Management.” The Accounting Review 70, 193-225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan and A. P. Sweeney. (1996). “Causes and Consequences of Earnings Manipulation: An Analysis of Firms Subject to Enforcement Actions by the SEC.” Contemporary Accounting Research 13, 1-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M. L. and K. R. Subramanyam. (1998). “Auditor Changes and Discretionary Accruals.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 25, 35-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degeorge, F., J. Patel and R. Zeckhauser. (1999). “Earnings Management to Exceed Thresholds.” The Journal of Business 72, 1-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield, P. M., S. Whisenant and T. L. Yohn. (2003). “The Differential Persistence of Accruals and Cash Flows for Future Operating Income versus Future Profitability.” Review of Accounting Studies 8, 221- 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (1997). Econometric Analysis. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayn, C. (1995). “The Information Content of Losses.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 20, 125-153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. (1991). “Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations.” Journal of Accounting Research 29, 193-228.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNichols, M. F. (2000). “Research Design Issues in Earnings Management Studies.” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 19, 313-345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J., M. Pincus and S. O. Rego. (2003). “Earnings Management: New Evidence Based on Deferred Tax Expense.” The Accounting Review 78, 491-521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, R. G. (1996). “Do Stock Prices Fully Reflect Information in Accruals and CashFlows about Future Earnings?” The Accounting Review 71, 289-315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. K. (1989). “Unusual Patterns in Reported Earnings.” The Accounting Review 64, 773-787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H. (2001). “Are Discretionary Accruals Mispriced? A Reexamination.” The Accounting Review 76, 357-373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. L. and J. L. Zimmerman. (1986). Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia M. Dechow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dechow, P.M., Richardson, S.A. & Tuna, I. Why Are Earnings Kinky? An Examination of the Earnings Management Explanation. Review of Accounting Studies 8, 355–384 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024481916719

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024481916719

Navigation