Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
David Burgstahler
Julius A. Roller Professor of Accounting
University of Washington/Seattle
Elizabeth Chuk
University of Southern California
Abstract
evidence is widely, but not universally, interpreted as consistent with the theory that earnings are
managed to meet prominent benchmarks. This theory posits that when pre-managed earnings are
lower than but sufficiently close to a benchmark such that the cost of managing earnings to exceed
the benchmark is low, firms take actions that transform pre-managed earnings below the
benchmark into post-managed (i.e., reported) earnings at or above the benchmark. As a result, the
distribution of reported earnings includes fewer observations below, and more observations above,
Despite extensive discontinuity evidence consistent with the theory that earnings are
managed to meet benchmarks, there are also some papers that provide evidence that is seemingly
inconsistent with the theory, comprising two basic forms of evidence. First, some papers provide
evidence that seems to support alternative explanations for discontinuities. For example, Durtschi
and Easton (2005, 2009) argue that discontinuities in earnings distributions are due to artifacts
such as scaling, sample selection, and the systematic relation between earnings and price, while
Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2007) suggest that discontinuities are due to a combination of the
effects of income taxes and the non-discretionary special items component of earnings. Second,
there are several papers that fail to find evidence that discontinuities are related to other commonly
The purpose of this paper is to integrate and reconcile the various discontinuity-related
results that have appeared in the literature. The theory that earnings are managed to meet
benchmarks implies that differences in costs and benefits of managing earnings (across
benchmarks, firm characteristics, or time) will result in different rates of earnings management
Page 1
theory that earnings are managed. In Section 3, we evaluate the extent to which alternative
theories can explain the body of discontinuity evidence. Finally, in Section 4 we present some
concludes.
Economic theory suggests that firms manage earnings to meet benchmarks when the
benefits exceed the costs. Burgstahler and Dichev (1997, hereafter BD) suggest the primary
benefits of managing earnings to meet a benchmark are improved terms of transactions with
stakeholders, such as lower wage and benefit demands from current and potential employees,
better terms from suppliers and creditors, and higher valuation by shareholders. The costs of
managing earnings include the cost of restructuring transactions (real earnings management) and
the cost of making accrual accounting choices (accrual-based earnings management) to increase
current earnings.
large number of observations immediately above the benchmark and an unusually low number of
evidence within a framework based on five key characteristics of discontinuity evidence that are
1. Pervasiveness
2. Evidence of a trough below the benchmark and a peak above the benchmark
3. Covariation with earnings management incentives
4. Existence in earnings measures that are widely used in stakeholder decisions
5. Non-existence in earnings measures that are not widely used in stakeholder decisions
Page 2
earnings, changes in earnings, and earnings surprise (i.e., earnings less forecasts) at a variety of
benchmarks, in annual and in quarterly earnings, and in the US and other countries. There is
profit/loss benchmark (Hayn, 1995; BD, 1997; Degeorge et al., 1999; Burgstahler 2014), earnings-
per-share at zero, at other prominent non-zero benchmarks such as multiples of 5 or 10 cents per
share, and in the third decimal digit (Thomas, 1989, Das and Zhang, 2003, Grundfest and
Malenko, 2009, Jorgensen, Lee, and Rock, 2014, Burgstahler and Chuk, forthcoming); earnings
changes at zero (BD, 1997; Degeorge et al., 1999; Beatty et al., 2002; Brown and Caylor, 2005;
Donelson et al., 2013); and earnings surprise at zero (Degeorge et al., 1999; Abarbanell and
Lehavy 2003; Brown and Caylor, 2005; Burgstahler and Eames, 2006; Donelson et al., 2013).
There is similar evidence using international data (Leuz, Nanda, and Wysocki, 2003; Haw et al.,
2005; Daske et al., 2006; Suda and Shuto, 2007). Evidence of discontinuities also exists for
performance measures other than earnings, such as debt covenant slack ratios (Dichev and
Skinner, 2002), current ratios (Dyreng, Mayew, and Schipper, 2012), and for reported hedge fund
2.2 Evidence of a trough below the benchmark and a peak above the benchmark
Discontinuities generally consist of both a trough below the benchmark and a peak above
the benchmark, consistent with the earnings management hypothesis that pre-managed earnings
below the benchmark are transformed into reported earnings above the benchmark. For examples
1
There is also evidence that choices about whether to take additional at-bats near the end of the season create
discontinuities in distributions of professional baseball batting averages and choices about whether to retake college
entrance exams create discontinuities in exam scores (Pope and Simonsohn, 2010)
Page 3
and discussion of distinctive trough and peak discontinuities, see BD; Das and Zhang, 2003;
Degeorge et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2010; and Jacob and Jorgensen, 2007. Also see Kerstein and
Rai 2007 and Dhaliwal, Gleason, and Mills 2004 for more direct evidence on actions that
transform pre-managed earnings below the benchmark into reported earnings above the
benchmark.
Evidence that discontinuities co-vary with factors that affect the costs or expected benefits
of earnings management provides further support for the theory that discontinuities are due to
management of earnings to meet benchmarks. In settings where benefits are lower or costs are
higher, the proportion of observations where the benefits exceed the cost falls, and discontinuities
dissipate or vanish completely. For example, Burgstahler and Dichev (1997) provide evidence
that discontinuities in earnings levels (changes) are weaker among firms with a weaker record of
recent profitability (increases in profitability), consistent with the hypothesis that these firms
expect lower benefits or face higher costs of managing to meet benchmarks. Conversely,
discontinuities are stronger among firms with stronger incentives to manage earnings due to higher
benefits or lower costs. For example, Beatty, Ke, and Petroni (2002) hypothesize that public banks
have stronger incentives to report earnings increases than private banks and find corresponding
evidence of stronger discontinuities for public banks. Burgstahler and Chuk (forthcoming)
suggest that weaker evidence of discontinuities among smaller market capitalization firms and
among lower price per share firms is consistent with lower benefits and higher costs of earnings
management for those firms. Gilliam, Heflin, and Patterson (forthcoming) provide evidence that
suggests the costs of earnings management may have increased following passage of Sarbanes-
Finally, Li (2014) develops a model that predicts the strength of the discontinuity in earnings will
Page 4
be related to the autocorrelation of firms' earnings series and reports evidence consistent with the
reported and commonly used in stakeholder decisions, such as earnings before extraordinary
items, net income, or earnings per share (see, for example, BD, Das and Zhang 2003, Jacob and
Jorgensen 2007, Grundfest and Malenko 2009, Jorgensen, Lee, and Rock 2014, Burgstahler and
Chuk, forthcoming).
Discontinuities do not appear in measures of earnings that are not widely-reported and used in
stakeholder decisions. For example, Jacob and Jorgensen (2007) show that there are highly
significant discontinuities in distributions of annual earnings while there are not discontinuities in
distributions of "pseudo annual earnings" measures constructed by adding earnings from four
adjacent quarters ending at interim quarter-ends. More recently, Jorgensen, Lee, and Rock (2014)
report evidence from a natural experiment created when the focal EPS measure was changed by
SFAS 128 and firms were required to report retroactively restated Diluted EPS measures. The
discontinuity at the zero benchmark appears in distributions of changes in 'as reported' Primary
EPS but not in changes in 'as restated' Diluted EPS, consistent with expectations if reported
earnings measures are managed to avoid small earnings decreases, whereas subsequently defined
Similarly, Dechow, Richardson, and Tuna 2003 Figure 6 shows that the distribution of
reported earnings contains a discontinuity while the distribution of their constructed "earnings
before discretionary accruals" does not. They also describe similar results for earnings before a
randomly generated variable with the same mean and variance as their measure of discretionary
Page 5
accruals. These results further support the theory that discontinuities are due to earnings
management because both earnings before discretionary accruals and earnings before randomly
generated noise are measures that are not widely used in stakeholders decisions so there is little
incentive to manage these measures to meet benchmarks. In Section 3.2 below, we provide some
measures that are not widely used in stakeholder decisions, such as earnings before special items
decisions but not for earnings measures that are not used by stakeholders substantially narrows the
set of plausible explanations for discontinuities. This evidence is inconsistent with explanations
that apply to earnings measures irrespective of whether the measure is used by stakeholders. On
the other hand, this evidence is consistent with the theory that earnings measures used in
2.6 Summary
The characteristics of the body of discontinuity evidence are consistent with the theory that
earnings are managed to meet benchmarks. In contrast, these characteristics are difficult to
reconcile with many potential alternative explanations for discontinuities. In particular, the
combination of characteristics in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 is inconsistent with any artifactual
explanation that does not specify why the artifact applies selectively only to earnings measures
discontinuity evidence outlined above, rather than with just one or two individual characteristics.
Durtschi and Easton (2005, 2009) report examples of distributions that do not contain
discontinuities and assert that their evidence shows that discontinuities are not due to earnings
management but instead are attributable to a combination of scaling, selection, and the relation
between earnings and price. As explained in the previous section, these explanations, and other
artifactual explanations that apply to both reported earnings and to alternative earnings measures
that are not widely used by stakeholders are not consistent with the fact that discontinuities do not
Burgstahler and Chuk (forthcoming) show why the Durtschi and Easton distributions do not
contain discontinuities. The research designs used throughout Durtschi and Easton fail to account
for the substantial effect of size as a covariate and focus almost exclusively on observations for the
smallest firms. Burgstahler and Chuk (forthcoming) show how research designs that correct for
these flaws reveal highly significant discontinuities in unscaled earnings and in EPS. Thus,
scaling, selection, and the relation between earnings and price are not plausible alternative
Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2007, hereafter BMN) suggest that special items
contribute to the discontinuity in earnings based on the evidence in their Figure 3 that shows the
distribution of earnings before special items has a less pronounced discontinuity than the
distribution after special items, a result that at first seems to suggest that special items cause the
Page 7
earnings to form "earnings before the component" eliminates the discontinuity at zero, as long as
(1) the modified earnings measure that results from removing the component is not widely used in
stakeholder decisions and (2) the removed component of earnings has non-trivial variability.2
To demonstrate how components of earnings may seem to play a special role in earnings
before special items, 2) earnings before research and development expense, and 3) earnings before
depreciation. Removing any of these components creates a new earnings measure that is not
Figure 1 replicates and refines the findings in BMN by focusing on the subset of
observations for which the component is non-zero and non-missing. The significance of
discontinuities can be assessed by focusing on the standardized difference for either the interval
immediately below the benchmark (the left standardized difference) or the interval immediately
above the benchmark (the right standardized difference). For the sake of brevity, we discuss only
the left standardized difference (where more negative values indicate a more significant
discontinuity) in the text, but for completeness Table 1 reports both left and right standardized
differences.4 Panel A shows a clear and highly significant (standardized difference = -5.27)
2
A component of earnings with "non-trivial" variability is a component that is not simply constant, or nearly
constant, across observations. For example, for firms that do not have special items, special items are zero and have
trivial variability. For these firms, the distribution of earnings before special items is identical to the distribution of
earnings including special items, and the identical distributions both have a discontinuity.
3
An example of an earnings measure formed by removing a component that is widely used in stakeholder decisions
is Earnings before extraordinary items (EBEI). The importance of EBEI in stakeholder decisions is indicated by its
emphasis in the financial press, on the income statement, and in the computation of earnings per share before and after
extraordinary items. Distributions of both net income and earnings before extraordinary items contain discontinuities,
consistent with the hypothesis that both net income and EBEI are managed.
4
As discussed in more detail in Burgstahler and Chuk 2014, when discontinuities are the result of earnings
management where pre-managed earnings observations move only from the interval immediately below the
benchmark and are transformed into reported earnings only in the interval immediately above the benchmark, the left
and right standardized differences yield similar evaluations of significance. When observations are from primarily the
interval immediately below the benchmark but are transformed to a number of intervals above the benchmark, the left
standardized difference will provide the more powerful test. When observations are from a number of intervals below
Page 8
discontinuity in the distribution of earnings after special items (i.e., reported earnings) while Panel
before special items (standardized difference = 0.00). The discontinuity in the distribution of
reported earnings is consistent with the theory that reported earnings are managed to meet the zero
benchmark. The lack of a discontinuity in the distribution of earnings before special items is
consistent with the conjecture that earnings before special items (which is neither widely reported
nor widely used in stakeholders decisions) is not managed to meet the zero benchmark.5
For two other components of earnings with non-trivial variability, research and
development expense and depreciation expense, we find similar results. For the subset of firms
with nonzero and non-missing research and development expense, Figure 2 Panel A shows a
before research and development expense (standardized difference = .49). Similarly, for the
subpopulation of firms with nonzero and non-missing depreciation, Figure 3 Panel A shows a
the benchmark but are transformed primarily to the interval immediately above the benchmark, the right standardized
difference will provide the more powerful test. We have no reason to believe that any one of these specific conditions
applies generally to our results so the text refers only to left standardized differences while Table 1 reports both left
and right standardized differences.
5
Panels A and B refine the special items results in BMN by concentrating only on the subset of observations where
special items are non-zero. For observations where special items are zero or missing, earnings before and after special
items are identical by definition. Although they are not reported here to save space, distributions for the
subpopulations where each component is zero or missing and therefore has no effect on reported earnings have
significant discontinuities, consistent with the hypothesis that reported earnings are managed to meet the zero
benchmark. These facts explain the effect of including observations in the analysis where the component is zero or
missing. For example, when observations where special items are zero or missing are pooled with observations in
Panel A, the two distributions being pooled both contain significant discontinuities and the resulting pooled
distribution of reported earnings has a highly significant discontinuity at zero (corresponding to BMN Figure 2 Panel
A where the standardized difference is 9.07). When observations where special items are zero or missing are pooled
with observations in Panel B, only one of the two distributions being pooled contains a significant discontinuity and
the resulting pooled distribution of earnings before special items has a much less significant discontinuity at zero
(corresponding to BMN Figure 3 Panel A where the standardized difference is 3.23).
Page 9
-10.46) while Panel B shows no significant discontinuity in the distribution of earnings before
earnings distributions is not evidence of a unique role for that component, but rather evidence that
the component plays a role similar to other non-trivial components of earnings. Further, the lack
of a discontinuity in distributions of earnings before special items, earnings before R&D, and
earnings before depreciation is consistent with the conjecture that these constructed measures are
not managed to meet the zero benchmark.6 These results provide additional evidence inconsistent
with any alternative explanation for discontinuities unless the alternative explanation applies only
zero benchmark are due to much lower tax rates for negative earnings than for positive earnings,
so that positive earnings are pulled toward zero by taxes more than are negative earnings. While
this explanation could in concept play some role, there are two important reasons to believe the
role of differential effective tax rates in explaining the body of discontinuity evidence is extremely
limited.
First, the differential tax rate explanation is limited strictly to discontinuities where the tax
rate for earnings immediately above the benchmark is substantially higher than the tax rate
immediately below the benchmark. This condition potentially holds for the benchmark at zero in
6
Dechow, Richardson, and Tuna (2003) provide a related result in their Figures 6(a) and 6(b), where they report that
subtracting a random noise variable with non-trivial variability from reported earnings results in a transformed
earnings measure ("earnings before random noise") that does not have a discontinuity. Obviously, this does not
indicate that randomly generated noise plays a role in earnings management, but rather that firms do not manage
earnings before random noise.
Page 10
earnings levels (see BMN Figure 2 Panel B) but there is no evidence that it holds for other
benchmarks. For example, there is no reason to believe that tax rates are markedly higher for
increases in earnings than for decreases in earnings or for positive earnings surprises than for
negative earnings surprises or for EPS above versus below each multiple of $.05 or $.10 per
share.7 Therefore, the BMN tax explanation does not apply to any of the discontinuities
documented in the literature other than the discontinuity at zero earnings levels.
Second, even for the benchmark at zero in earnings levels, the assumption that differences
in tax rates account for discontinuities in earnings distributions requires further examination.
From a theoretical perspective, effective tax rates, defined consistent with BMN as the ratio of tax
expense to pretax income, depend not only on the level of pretax income for the current year, but
also on the actual and expected origination and reversal of temporary book-tax differences as well
as on permanent differences.8 While BMN Figure 2 Panel B shows a higher effective tax rate for
positive pre-tax earnings than negative pretax earnings on average, effective tax rates are not
simply a function of the level of pre-tax earnings. Instead, effective tax rates and pretax earnings
are jointly determined, so that distributions of reported earnings differ across effective tax rates.
From an empirical perspective, we can obtain a better understanding of the role of effective tax
rates by stratifying the population based on the effective tax rate. Further, stratification holds the
tax rate approximately constant within each stratified segment. Because there is (approximately)
no difference between how positive versus negative pre-tax earnings observations are pulled
toward zero within each stratified segment, effective tax rates cannot explain discontinuities in the
7
Carslaw 1988, Thomas 1989, Dechow et al 2003, Grundfest and Malenko 2009, and Burgstahler and Chuk
(forthcoming) provide evidence of management to benchmarks defined by multiples of $.05 or $.10 per share.
8
For a more extensive discussion of the determinants of effective tax rates, see Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew (2008),
especially Section III.
Page 11
Figure 4 Panels A to D show distributions of earnings for segments of the population
where each stratum has a constrained range of positive effective tax rates.9 Panel A includes all
observations with effective tax rates greater than 0 and less than or equal to 15%, while Panels B,
C, and D show observations with effective tax rates greater than 15% and less than or equal to
30%, greater than 30% and less than or equal to 45%, and greater than 45%, respectively. The
majority of the observations, approximately 56% of the total observations in the four panels, are in
Panel C for tax rates between 30% and 45%. This distribution includes a significant discontinuity
with a distinct trough below and peak above the benchmark (standardized difference = -6.96).
Panels B (effective rates between 15% and 30%) and A (effective rates between 0% and 15%)
account for the next two largest proportions of observations, 21% and 13 %, respectively, and both
show significant discontinuities (standardized differences of -4.78 and -6.00, respectively) with a
distinct trough below the zero benchmark. Panel D accounts for the smallest proportion of
observations, approximately 10%, but also shows significantly more observations above the
The four segments of the population plotted in Figure 4 account for 72% of the distribution
of market-value scaled earnings. Because the omitted segments where effective tax rates are less
than or equal to zero account for only 28% of the distribution and do not contain discontinuities,
the four plotted segments account for essentially all of the discontinuity in the scaled earnings
distribution. Within each of these segments where the effective tax rate is held approximately
9
Figure 4.2 excludes observations with negative or zero tax rates, which are commonly omitted in research on tax
rates (see, for example, Dyreng, Hanlon, and Maydew 2008). These omitted observations constitute a relatively small
proportion of the total observations in the overall distribution of earnings (about 28%). More importantly, these
observations do not contribute to the discontinuity in the overall distribution, as there are more observations below the
zero benchmark than above for both these segments of the population. The distribution for the negative effective tax
rate observations has a mode below the zero benchmark and the distribution for the zero effective tax rate
observations is bimodal, with one mode at moderately negative earnings and a smaller mode at moderately positive
earnings.
Page 12
constant, differences in effective tax rates for positive versus negative earnings cannot explain the
discontinuities. Thus, a careful examination of the joint determination of effective tax rates and
reported earnings reveals that differences in the tax rates that apply to positive versus negative
There is an essentially unlimited list of real operating, financing, and investing decisions
or actions to motivate employees to exert extra effort to meet the benchmark) and accrual
decisions (such as accounting decisions that transfer future income to the present) that can be used
to manage earnings (McVay 2006, Roychowdhury 2006). While the body of evidence of
discontinuities at benchmarks is highly consistent with the theory that firms take actions that
transform pre-managed earnings below the benchmark into reported earnings above the
benchmark, discontinuity evidence cannot identify exactly what actions were taken. Further, there
is no reason to believe that an observed discontinuity at any given benchmark is uniquely, or even
that different observations have been transformed by different earnings management actions. In
fact, in many cases, each individual observation is likely to have been transformed by more than
Several papers suggest that discontinuities are not explained primarily by abnormal
accruals. Dechow, Richardson, and Tuna (2003, hereafter DRT) report that they cannot confirm
that the discontinuity in earnings is driven primarily by discretionary accruals and note that
discontinuities may also be attributable to real economic decisions. Ayers, Jiang, and Yeung
10
The Harnischfeger Corporation case illustrates how an individual earnings observation can be influenced by
multiple real and accrual decisions.
Page 13
(2006, hereafter AJY) are unable to document a unique positive association between discretionary
accruals and beating earnings benchmarks, as the same positive association extends to other points
of the earnings distributions that do not represent benchmarks. AJY conclude that their results are
not sufficient to conclude that discretionary accruals account for earnings management for
The findings in DRT and AJY reinforce the idea that earnings management actions include
broad sets of both real economic decisions and accrual decisions and that reported earnings are
affected by different actions drawn from these broad sets. Further, significant specification issues
for discretionary accrual models further complicate attempts to determine whether accrual
decisions are important explanators of instances of earnings management. Therefore, the lack of
evidence confirming that earnings management is due primarily to discretionary accrual choices
does not contradict the theory that earnings are managed to meet benchmarks.
economic theory predicts that the strength of each discontinuity depends on the relative benefits
versus costs of earnings management in a particular setting. In this section, we consider examples
of determinants of the costs and benefits of managing earnings to meet various benchmarks (e.g.,
zero earnings, prior-year earnings, and analyst forecasts). Specifically, we provide cross-sectional
related to firm growth, and analyst following. Our sample consists of all firm-years on Compustat
with non-missing required data items during the years 1990 to 2013. For the figures using analyst-
based earnings surprises and analyst following partitions, we also require corresponding data from
IBES.
Page 14
4.1 Regulated Industries
Empirical evidence has typically excluded regulated firms out of concern that these firms
might face different incentives.11 In this section, we discuss incentives and examine the associated
comprising firms in regulated industries that are typically deleted in earnings management studies:
firms with SIC codes between 4400 and 5000 and between 6000 and 6500. We then partition the
regulated industries into subsets based on incentives created by regulation: (1) rate-regulated firms
with SIC codes 4600 to 4699 and 4900 to 4999, (2) banks with SIC codes 6000 to 6299 and
insurance companies with SIC codes 6300 to 6499, and (3) all others with SIC codes 4400 to 4599
First, we examine rate-regulated firms, which are subject to government regulation on the
supply and pricing of goods and services sold. In rate-regulated industries, there is typically little
or no competition, such that customers generally have no alternative to the rate-regulated entity, so
regulators seek to ensure that the rate-regulated entity earns no more than a fair and reasonable
rate of return. For this reason, rate-regulated firms have incentives to report lower earnings in
order to make the case to regulators for higher rates. Thus, rate-regulation provides incentives to
reduce reported earnings, and these incentives counteract incentives to increase earnings to meet
benchmarks. Figure 5 Panel A shows the distribution of earnings levels for the rate-regulated
consistent with the conjecture that incentives to report lower earnings counteract incentives to
11
For example, BD eliminated regulated firms that might have "conflicting incentives to report lower earnings or
decreases in earnings" to regulators and also eliminated financial institutions where "incentives to avoid earnings
decreases or losses might be linked to regulatory oversight." An example of research that focused specifically on
regulated firms is Beatty et al (2002), discussed further below.
Page 15
Second, we examine banks, subject to multiple regulatory requirements designed to ensure
capital adequacy and reduce the probability of bank failures, and insurance companies, also
subject to regulation to maintain solvency and liquidity. The incentives created by capital
regulation are similar to the incentives for earnings management, in that both types of incentives
encourage managers to report higher earnings. Thus, the incentives created by capital regulation
do not counteract the earnings management incentives so we expect to find evidence that banks
and insurance companies manage earnings to meet benchmarks. For example, Beatty et al. (2002)
report evidence that public banks have incentives to report earnings increases, and that these
incentives are substantially stronger than those for private banks; their findings illustrate that
banks have incentives to manage earnings that are similar to those of non-banks. Figure 5 Panel B
shows the distribution of earnings levels for our sample of banks and insurance companies. The
distribution shows a clear discontinuity at zero (standardized difference =-3.5767), consistent with
Beatty et al. (2002) and suggesting that the additional regulatory incentives faced by banks and
insurance companies do not counteract the incentives to meet the zero earnings benchmark.
Finally, for completeness, we examine the earnings distribution for the remaining regulated
industries, which include transportation (SIC codes 4400 to 4599) and television and radio
broadcast (SIC codes 4700 to 4899). The regulatory requirements for the transportation industry
largely relate to safety requirements, and the regulatory requirements for television and radio
broadcast largely relate to censorship and the decency of content. There is no reason to believe
these regulatory requirements create incentives that counteract the incentives to manage earnings
to meet benchmarks. Therefore, we expect to find discontinuities for this segment of regulated
industries and, as expected, Figure 5 Panel C shows a significant discontinuity for these regulated
Page 16
Cross-sectional differences in discontinuities for the regulated industries that are typically
omitted in tests of earnings management to meet benchmarks are consistent with the theory that
Higher expected growth firms are likely to be penalized more for failing to report earnings
that reinforce perceptions of continuing growth (Skinner and Sloan 1999, Das and Zhang 2003).
Das and Zhang (2003) report evidence that higher growth firms are more likely to report earnings
where the third decimal digit is such that earnings round up rather than down. The strength of
incentives for high growth firms to meet benchmarks is likely to depend on how directly the
earnings measure is related to growth. Because positive growth is closely related to positive
change in earnings, we expect stronger evidence of discontinuities for higher growth firms in
distributions of earnings changes. On the other hand, positive growth is less directly related to
earnings levels. In fact, it is not uncommon for high growth firms to have negative earnings.
To provide evidence regarding these conjectures, we define high growth versus low growth
firms by partitioning our sample into terciles based on growth, where the top (bottom) tercile
represents the high (low) growth firms. In order to avoid the possibility of a mechanical relation
between our measure of growth and current-year results, our proxy for growth in year t is the one-
year rate of revenue growth from the prior year, defined as (Revenuet1 Revenuet2) / Revenuet2.
We compare the strength of discontinuities for high versus low growth firms for both earnings
Figure 6 Panels A and B show distributions of earnings levels for high versus low growth
firms, respectively. The strength of the discontinuity in earnings levels for the high growth firms
Page 17
in Panel A (standardized difference = -6.91) is not markedly different than that for the low growth
firms (standardized difference = -5.74) in Panel B. The results provide no evidence to support the
conjecture that incentives to meet the zero benchmark in earnings levels are stronger for higher
growth firms.
Figure 7 Panels A and B show a corresponding analysis for earnings changes for high
growth and low growth firms. Panel A shows a significant discontinuity (standardized difference
= -2.30) in the distribution of earnings changes for high growth firms. In contrast, Panel B does
not show a significant discontinuity (standardized difference = -.89) for firms in the bottom tercile.
These findings are consistent with the conjecture that high growth firms have stronger incentives
to meet the zero earnings change benchmark, more directly reinforcing perceptions of continued
discontinuities in changes in earnings but not in earnings levels. These results are consistent with
stronger incentives for higher growth firms to meet the prior-year earnings benchmark, perhaps
because this benchmark is more directly related to perceptions of continuing growth than the zero
Incentives for earnings management may also be related to the information environment.
In higher quality information environments, there may be weaker incentives to manage earnings to
meet simple heuristic benchmarks, such as zero earnings. Analyst following is positively related
to the quality of the information environment, as analysts typically are sophisticated processors of
earnings information and analysts may also choose to more often follow firms that have a higher
quality information environment (Healy and Palepu 2001). Therefore, we proxy for quality of the
information environment by partitioning based on the number of analyst following the firm. We
Page 18
define low-analyst-following firms as those with fewer than four analysts and define high-analyst-
following firms as those with greater than four analysts, where four is the median number of
Figure 8 Panels A and B show the distributions of earnings levels for firms on IBES with
low and high analyst following, respectively. The discontinuity for firms with high analyst
following in Panel B is less prominent (standardized difference = -3.25) than that for firms with
low analyst following in Panel A (standardized difference = -6.34).12 This finding is consistent
with the idea that a higher quality information environment reduces incentives to manage earnings
Next, we perform a similar analysis using analyst-based earnings surprises. While the
findings for earnings levels suggest there are weaker incentives to meet the simple heuristic
benchmark of zero earnings for firms in information environments with higher analyst following,
the prediction for analyst forecasts is less straightforward. On one hand, the consensus analyst
reduce the incentives to meet the simple heuristic benchmark of the analyst consensus estimate.
On the other hand, greater analyst coverage may increase the importance of the consensus analyst
forecast as a benchmark, so a larger number of analysts forecasting earnings for the firm creates
stronger incentives to manage earnings to meet analyst forecasts. For these reasons, the predicted
strength of discontinuities in analyst-based earnings surprises for high versus low growth firms is
unclear.
12
In untabulated results, we further partition the sample into groups based on the following ranges of analyst
following: 1, 2 to 3, 4 to 5, 6 to 10, and 11 and above. The pattern of results for this finer partitioning also supports
the idea that the discontinuity at the zero benchmark becomes weaker for firms with larger analyst following.
Page 19
Figure 9 Panels A and B show distributions of price-scaled earnings surprises for low and
high analyst following, respectively. In contrast to the results on earnings levels in Figure 8, the
discontinuity for firms with high analyst following in Figure 9 Panel B is more prominent
(standardized difference = -43.26) than for firms with low analyst following in Panel A
(standardized difference = -28.33). This finding is consistent with the idea that there are stronger
incentives to manage earnings to meet the consensus analyst forecasts for firms that are followed
by more analysts.13
5. Conclusion
The extensive body of discontinuity evidence is consistent with the theory that earnings are
discontinuities occur for a variety of earnings variables (earnings levels, earnings changes, and
earnings surprises) using a variety of scalers (market value, book value, revenue, or total assets)
and in unscaled earnings and unscaled earnings per share. The form of the distributional
immediately below the benchmark into post-managed observations immediately above the
benchmark. Also, the strength of discontinuities covaries with the strength of incentives to
manage earnings. Finally, discontinuities exist for earnings measures widely used by stakeholders
but do not exist for other earnings measures that are not used by stakeholders.
We summarize the discontinuity literature using a framework that identifies five key
1. Pervasiveness
2. Evidence of a trough below the benchmark and a peak above the benchmark
13
In Figure 9, the peak of the distribution occurs at the benchmark which raises issues of interpretation. For a
discussion of these issues, see footnote 9 in Burgstahler and Chuk, forthcoming, Page 375 in Dechow et al. (2003), or
Page 381 in Jacob and Jorgensen (2007).
Page 20
3. Covariation with earnings management incentives
4. Existence in earnings measures that are widely used in stakeholder decisions
5. Non-existence in earnings measures that are not widely used in stakeholder decisions
Many potential alternative explanations for discontinuities are inconsistent with one or more of the
characteristics. For example, the BMN tax rate explanation applies only to benchmarks where
there are higher tax rates above versus below the benchmark and is therefore limited to
discontinuities in earnings levels at the zero benchmark. Because there is no evidence that tax
rates are different above versus below benchmarks for earnings changes, earnings surprise, or at
non-zero benchmarks, differences in tax rates cannot explain any of these discontinuities and also
cannot explain the trough below the benchmark and the peak above the benchmark.14
on the basis of their ability to explain these five characteristics. It is difficult to account for the
key characteristics of the evidence, especially the fourth and fifth characteristics, using any theory
based on artifacts since the artifact must simultaneously apply to reported earnings yet not apply to
modified earnings measures that are not widely used in stakeholder decisions. Among the
possible explanations that have thus far been developed in the literature, the theory that earnings
are managed to meet benchmarks provides the most simple and complete explanation for the entire
14
Although we attempt to focus on major issues in interpreting the body of discontinuity evidence, there are still
important technical issues to be addressed, such as development of more powerful and more valid tests for the
significance of discontinuities that appear at the peak of an earnings distribution. The standardized difference statistic
used in this paper relies on the assumption of local linearity. However, the standardized difference statistic might not
be appropriate when local curvature is high, such as at the peak of a leptokurtic distribution like scaled earnings
(Frecka and Hopwood, 1983; Basu and Markov, 2004).
Page 21
References
Abarbanell, J., Lehavy, R., 2003. Biased forecasts or biased earnings? The role of reported
earnings in explaining apparent bias and over/underreaction in analysts earnings forecasts.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 36, 105-146.
Ayers, B., Jiang, J., and Yeung, P.E., 2006. Discretionary accruals and earnings management: An
analysis of pseudo earnings targets. The Accounting Review 81, 617-652.
Basu, S., Markov, S., 2004. Loss function assumptions in rational expectations tests on financial
analysts earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting and Economics 38, 171-203.
Beatty, A., Ke, B., Petroni, K., 2002. Earnings management to avoid earnings declines across
publicly and privately held banks. The Accounting Review 77, 547-570.
Beaver, W., McNichols, M., Nelson, K., 2007. An alternative interpretation of the discontinuity in
earnings distributions. Review of Accounting Studies 12, 525-556.
Bollen, N., Pool, V., 2009. Do hedge fund managers misreport returns? Evidence from the pooled
distribution. The Journal of Finance 64, 2257-2288.
Brown, L.D., Caylor, M.L., 2005. A temporal analysis of quarterly earnings thresholds:
propensities and valuation consequences. The Accounting Review 80, 423-440.
Burgstahler, D., 2014. Discussion of The Shapes of Scaled Earnings Histograms are Not Due to
Scaling and Sample Selection: Evidence from Distributions of Reported Earnings Per
Share. Contemporary Accounting Research 31 (2): 522-530.
Burgstahler, D. And E. Chuk, 2014. Detecting earnings management using discontinuity evidence.
Unpublished working paper, University of Washington.
Burgstahler, D., Dichev, I., 1997. Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 99126.
Burgstahler, D., Eames, M., 2006. Management of earnings and analysts forecasts to achieve zero
and small positive earnings surprise. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 33, 633-
652.
Carslaw, C., 1988. Anomalies in income numbers: evidence of goal oriented behavior. The
Accounting Review 63, 321327.
Chen, S., Lin, B., Wang, Y., Wu, L., 2010. The frequency and magnitude of earnings
management: Time-series and multi-threshold comparisons. International Review of
Economics & Finance 19, 671-685.
Das, S., Zhang, H., 2003. Rounding-up in reported EPS, behavioral thresholds, and earnings
management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 35, 31-50.
Page 22
Daske, H., Gebhardt, G., and McLeay, S., 2006. The distribution of earnings relative to targets in
the European Union. Accounting and Business Research 36:3, 137-167.
Dechow, P., Richardson S., Tuna, I., 2003. Why are earnings kinky? An examination of the
earnings management explanation. Review of Accounting Studies 8, 355-384.
Degeorge, F., Patel, J., Zeckhauser, R., 1999. Earnings manipulations to exceed thresholds.
Journal of Business 72, 133.
Dhaliwal, D., Gleason, C., Mills, L., 2004. Last-chance earnings management: using the tax
expense to meet analysts forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research 21, 431-459.
Dichev, I., Skinner, D., 2002. Large sample evidence on the debt covenants hypothesis. Journal of
Accounting Research 40, 10911123.
Donelson, D., McInnis, J., & Mergenthaler, R. "Discontinuities and earnings management:
Evidence from restatements related to securities litigation." Contemporary Accounting
Research 30:1 (2013): 242-268.
Durtschi, C., Easton, P., 2005. Earnings management? The shapes of the frequency distributions
of earnings metrics are not evidence ipso facto. Journal of Accounting Research 43, 557
592.
Durtschi, C., Easton, P., 2009. Earnings management? Erroneous inferences based on earnings
frequency distributions. Journal of Accounting Research 47, 12491281.
Dyreng, S., Hanlon, M., and Maydew, E., 2008. Long-run corporate tax avoidance. The
Accounting Review 83 (1) 61-82.
Dyreng, S., Mayew, W., Schipper, K., 2012. Evidence that managers intervene in financial
reporting to avoid working capital deficits. Working paper.
Frecka, T., Hopwood, W., 1983. The effects of outliers on the cross-sectional distributional
properties of financial ratios. The Accounting Review 58, 115-128.
Gleason, C., Mills, L., 2008. Evidence of differing market responses to beating analysts targets
through tax expense decreases. Review of Accounting Studies 13, 295-318.
Grundfest, J., Malenko, N., 2009. Quadrophobia: strategic rounding of EPS data. Working paper.
Harnischfeger Corporation, Harvard Business School Case 9-186-160, August 21, 1997.
Haw, I., Qi, D., Wu, D., Wu, W., 2005. Market consequences of earnings management in response
to security regulations in China. Contemporary Accounting Research 22, 95-140.
Hayn, C., 1995. The information content of losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20, 125-
153.
Page 23
Healy, P., Palepu, K., 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets:
A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31,
405440.
Jacob, J., Jorgensen, B., 2007. Earnings management and accounting income aggregation. Journal
of Accounting and Economics 43, 369390.
Jorgensen, B., Lee, Y., Rock, S., 2014 . The Shapes of Scaled Earnings Histograms are Not Due to
Scaling and Sample Selection: Evidence from Distributions of Reported Earnings Per Share.
Contemporary Accounting Research 31 (2): 498-521.
Kerstein, J., Rai, A., 2007. Intra-year shifts in the earnings distribution and their implications for
earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44, 399419.
Leuz, C., Nanda, D., Wysocki, P., 2003. Earnings management and investor protection: an
international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics 69, 505-527.
Li, W., 2014 . A theory on the discontinuity in earnings distributions. Contemporary Accounting
Research 31 (2): 469-497.
McVay, S., 2006. Earnings management using classification shifting: An examination of core
earnings and special items. The Accounting Review 81, 501-531.
Pope, D., Simonsohn, U., 2010. Round numbers as goals: evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and
the lab. Psychological Science 22, 71-79.
Roychowdhury, S., 2006. Earnings management through real activities manipulation. Journal of
Accounting and Economics 42, 335-370.
Skinner, D., Sloan, R. 2002. Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock returns or Don't
let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of Accounting Studies 7 (2-3), 289-312.
Suda, K., Shuto, A., 2007. Earnings management to meet earnings benchmarks: evidence from
Japan. Focus on Finance and Accounting Research. Neelan, M. (Ed). Nova Science Pub Inc.,
Hauppauge, New York, pp. 67-85.
Thomas, J., 1989. Unusual patterns in reported earnings. The Accounting Review 64, 773-787.
Page 24
Table 1
Standardized Difference Statistics
Figure 1 Panel A Earnings after special items, scaled by beginning MVE -5.2748 5.3824
Figure 1 Panel B Earnings before special items, scaled by beginning MVE 0.0000 0.7899
Figure 2 Panel A Earnings after R&D expense, scaled by beginning MVE -8.2171 5.5910
Figure 2 Panel B Earnings before R&D expense, scaled by beginning MVE 0.4953 0.4608
Figure 3 Panel A Earnings after depreciation expense, scaled by beginning MVE -10.4562 7.5707
Figure 3 Panel B Earnings before depreciation expense, scaled by beginning MVE -0.7800 -1.0979
Figure 4 Panel A Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with ETRs in (0%, 15%] -6.0003 1.1890
Figure 4 Panel B Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with ETRs in (15%, 30%] -4.7778 0.5906
Figure 4 Panel C Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with ETRs in (30%, 45%] -6.9608 -0.2132
Figure 4 Panel D Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with ETRs > 45% -4.7242 9.9452
Figure 5 Panel A Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for rate-regulated firms -0.4963 -0.1374
Figure 5 Panel B Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for banks and insurance companies -3.5767 1.4594
Figure 5 Panel C Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for other regulated firms -2.9039 2.1732
Figure 6 Panel A Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for high growth firms -6.9092 4.1137
Figure 6 Panel B Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for low growth firms -5.7368 4.6586
Figure 7 Panel A Change in earnings scaled by beginning MVE for high growth firms -2.3033 2.0881
Figure 7 Panel B Change in earnings scaled by beginning MVE for low growth firms -0.8874 2.1888
Figure 8 Panel A Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with low analyst following -6.3426 3.9899
Figure 8 Panel B Earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms with high analyst following -3.2516 1.3168
Figure 9 Panel A Earnings surprise scaled by beginning price for firms with low analyst following -28.3341 35.7218
Figure 9 Panel B Earnings surprise scaled by beginning price for firms with high analyst following -43.2644 74.0358
Notes: The standardized differences are computed following Burgstahler and Dichev (1997).
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV%HIRUHDQG$IWHU6SHFLDO,WHPV
3DQHO$
(DUQLQJV$IWHU6SHFLDO,WHPV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
3DQHO%
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH6SHFLDO,WHPV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH6SHFLDO,WHPV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings after special items scaled by beginning MVE in Panel A and earnings before special items scaled by beginning MVE in Panel B. Both panels use
all observations with nonzero and nonmissing special items in Compustat.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV%HIRUHDQG$IWHU5 '
3DQHO$
(DUQLQJV$IWHU5 '6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
3DQHO%
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH5 '6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH5 '6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings after R&D expense scaled by beginning MVE in Panel A and earnings before R&D expense scaled by beginning MVE in Panel B. Both panels
use all observations with nonzero and nonmissing R&D expense in Compustat.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV%HIRUHDQG$IWHU'HSUHFLDWLRQ
3DQHO$
(DUQLQJV$IWHU'HSUHFLDWLRQ6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
3DQHO%
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH'HSUHFLDWLRQ6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV%HIRUH'HSUHFLDWLRQ6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings after depreciation expense scaled by beginning MVE in Panel A and earnings before depreciation expense scaled by beginning MVE in Panel B.
Both panels use all observations with nonzero and nonmissing depreciation expense in Compustat.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(3DUWLWLRQHGE\(IIHFWLYH7D[5DWHV
3DQHO$ 3DQHO% 3DQHO& 3DQHO'
)LUPVZLWK(75VLQ@
)LUPVZLWK(75VLQ@ )LUPVZLWK(75VLQ@ )LUPVZLWK(75V!
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09( (DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09( (DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09( (DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings scaled by beginning MVE. Panel A shows the subsample of firms with effective tax rates greater than 0% and less than or equal to 15%. Panel B shows the
subsample of firms with effective tax rates greater than 15% and less than or equal to 30%. Panel C shows the subsample of firms with effective tax rates greater than 30% and less than or equal to 45%.
Panel D shows the subsample of firms with effective tax rates greater than 45%. Following Beaver, McNichols, and Nelson (2007), we define the effective tax rate as tax expense scaled by pretax income.
As discussed in the text, firms with zero or negative tax rates are not shown in these panels.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(IRU5HJXODWHG,QGXVWULHV
3DQHO$ 3DQHO% 3DQHO&
5DWH5HJXODWHG6,& %DQNVDQG,QVXUDQFH&RPSDQLHV6,& 2WKHU5HJXODWHG6,&
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09( (DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09( (DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings scaled by beginning MVE for firms in regulated industries with SIC codes that are typically discarded in earnings management studies. Panel A shows the
subsample of rate-regulated firms with SIC codes 4600-4699 and 4900-4999. Panel B shows the subsample of banks and insurance companies with SIC codes 6000-6499. Panel C shows the subsample of all
other regulated industries with SIC codes 4400-4599 and 4700-4899.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(3DUWLWLRQHGE\*URZWK
3DQHO$
+LJK*URZWK)LUPV+LJKHVW7HUFLOHRI*URZWK
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
3DQHO%
/RZ*URZWK)LUPV/RZHVW7HUFLOHRI*URZWK
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings scaled by beginning MVE. Panel A shows the subsample of firms in the highest tercile of growth. Panel B shows the subsample of firms in
the lowest tercile of growth.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI&KDQJHLQ(DUQLQJV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(3DUWLWLRQHGE\*URZWK
3DQHO$
+LJK*URZWK)LUPV+LJKHVW7HUFLOHRI*URZWK
)UHTXHQF\
1,DWW1,DWW09(DWW
3DQHO%
/RZ*URZWK)LUPV/RZHVW7HUFLOHRI*URZWK
)UHTXHQF\
1,DWW1,DWW09(DWW
This figure shows histograms of changes in earnings scaled by beginning MVE. Panel A shows the subsample of firms in the highest tercile of growth. Panel B shows the subsample of
firms in the lowest tercile of growth.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ09(3DUWLWLRQHGE\$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ
3DQHO$
/RZ$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ)LUPV)HZHU7KDQ$QDO\VWV
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
3DQHO%
+LJK$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ)LUPV*UHDWHU7KDQ$QDO\VWV
)UHTXHQF\
(DUQLQJV6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ09(
This figure shows histograms of earnings scaled by beginning MVE. Panel A shows the subsample of firms with fewer than four analysts. Panel B shows the subsample of firms with greater
than four analysts. For both panels, we require firms to be covered on IBES such that there is at least one analyst following.
)LJXUH
'LVWULEXWLRQRI(DUQLQJV6XUSULVH6FDOHGE\%HJLQQLQJ3ULFH3DUWLWLRQHGE\$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ
3DQHO$
/RZ$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ)LUPV)HZHU7KDQ$QDO\VWV
)UHTXHQF\
,%(6(DUQLQJV0LQXV,%(60HDQ$QDO\VW)RUHFDVW6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ3ULFH3HU6KDUH
3DQHO%
+LJK$QDO\VW)ROORZLQJ)LUPV*UHDWHU7KDQ$QDO\VWV
)UHTXHQF\
,%(6(DUQLQJV0LQXV,%(60HDQ$QDO\VW)RUHFDVW6FDOHG%\%HJLQQLQJ3ULFH3HU6KDUH
This figure shows histograms of earnings surprise scaled by beginning price per share. Panel A shows the subsample of firms with fewer than four analysts. Panel B shows the subsample of
firms with greater than four analysts. For both panels, we require firms to be covered on IBES such that there is at least one analyst following. Earnings surprise is defined as actual EPS
less the most recent mean consensus analyst forecast before the earnings announcement.