Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Accounting Research
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Accounting Research
Vol. 31 No. 2 Autumn 1993
Printed in US.A.
1. Introduction
190
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 191
mental signals identified in this study are used by investors to assess the
persistence (sometimes referred to as "quality") and growth of reported
earnings. We provide support for this hypothesis by demonstrating a
significant relation between an aggregate score reflecting the information
in the fundamentals and two indicators of persistence: the earnings re-
sponse coefficient and future earnings growth. In fact, this fundamental
("quality of earnings") score is more strongly associated with the response
coefficient than a time-series-based persistence measure, suggesting that
the former is more effective in capturing the permanent component of
earnings than the latter, which is commonly used by researchers.
We identify candidate fundamentals to be included in the empirical
tests from the written pronouncements of financial analysts. This
guided search procedure is different from the statistical search used in
previous research, such as Ou and Penman [1989]. A directed search
for fundamentals, guided by theory or by experts' judgment, is a natu-
ral extension of the statistical search procedure.1
This study thus extends the search for value-relevant fundamentals
both by using a guided choice of candidate variables and by condition-
ing the returns-fundamentals relation on macroeconomic variables (a
contextual analysis). We also link our fundamental analysis findings
with the persistence/response coefficient literature by demonstrating
that the identified fundamentals capture important characteristics of
earnings persistence.
1 A guided search for fundamentals also yields variables that can be intuitively mo
vated to students and practitioners, while a statistical search might identify unknown and
hard-to-justify variables (e.g., Ou and Penman's Sales to Total Cash ratio or Holthausen
and Larcker's [1992] Percent Change in Sales over Total Assets ratio), which probably
proxy for other underlying constructs.
2 The key phrases used for search in the Dow Jones News Service Text data base were
"Quality of Earnings" and "Quality of Assets."
3 Published by the Reporting Research Corporation, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. See also
the book by this firm's CEO, Thornton O'Glove, Quality of Earnings [1987]. A similar
commentary is provided by Mr. David Tice in his newsletter, Behind the Numbers.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
192 JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, AUTUMN 1993
HARRIS CORPORATION
The above table illustrates that for the first half of the 1988/89 fiscal year [i.e., the six months ending
12/31/1988], Harris' trade receivables and inventories advanced more rapidly than sales. This adverse
trend figures to compromise Harris' share earnings in the second half of the 1988/89 fiscal year end-
ing June 30th.
2.1 INVENTORIES
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 193
TABLE 1
Definition and Measurement of Candidate Fundamental Signals Examined in This Study for Value Relevance
(The Signals Were Derived from a Search of Analysts' Pronouncements during 1984-90, Particularly Those
Concerning the Quality and Adequacy of Reported Financial Data. The Values of the Variables for Each
Signal Are Annual Numbers Derived from Compustat. Compustat Item Numbers Are Given in Parentheses.
A Refers to Percentage Annual Change in the Variable from the Average of Prior Two Years.)
Sales1o1 Sales d
No. of Employees, -- No. of Employees t)
Sales , I
No. of Employees t-
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
194 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
4Strictly speaking, the benchmark in expression (1) should be cost of sales. Empiri-
cally, the two benchmarks yielded virtually identical results. The sales benchmark was
preferred because it is consistent with the signals suggested by analysts.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 195
2.4 R&D
5Both analysts and researchers often compare a given firm's R&D and capital expen-
diture levels to those of similar firms within the industry. For example, see the Wall Street
Journal (September 17, 1990, p. C2) on Digital Equipment Corp. and Grabowski [1978].
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
196 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
In expression (4), PTEt(Tt-I - Tt), which indicates the part of the net
earnings change due to the effective tax rate change, is our measure of
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 197
the tax signal (after deflation by beginning price).6 The effective tax
rate was measured as the current federal tax expense divided by pretax
earnings (minus equity income from unconsolidated subsidiaries plus
income from minority interests).7
Period: t t- 1
Earnings before tax 120 100
Effective tax rate 0.25 0.40
Net earnings 90 60
The net earnings change, 30, consists according to (4) of the before tax earnings change,
20 x 0.60 = 12, and the impact of the tax rate change, 120 (0.40 - 0.25) = 18. The latter
(price-deflated) component of the total earnings change is our tax signal.
7This measure is used by Porcano [1986] and examined in Omer, Molloy, and Ziebart
[1991]. Compustat item numbers for this measure are 63 / (18 + 63 + 49- 48 - 55). Firms
having both a negative numerator and a negative denominator were excluded from the
sample. Following Omer, Molloy, and Ziebart [1991], firms with a positive numerator
and negative denominator were coded to represent the statutary rate (48% before 1986,
46% in 1986, and 34% starting in 1987).
8The relative (to sales) change in order backlog is, for example, the measure most
closely watched in the computer (particularly semiconductor) industry, where it is known
as the "Book to Bill" ratio, relating order backlog (Book) to sales (Bill).
9 For example, Exxon laid off almost 40% of its work force in 1986, yet total wages and
salaries increased that year by 3%.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
198 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 199
12
APTEi = the annual change in pretax earnings times one minus last
year's effective tax rate. This is the first component on the
right side of expression (4); the second component is the
tax signal. The sum of these two components is AEi.
S.i = fundamental signals outlined in table 1; j= 1,... ,12.
month of the preceding fiscal year. Some sample firms (less than 5% of total sample) had
less than 36 monthly returns. The minimum number of returns used for these firms was
10. The resulting monthly returns were compounded to obtain annual returns.
12 Given some extreme values of the fundamental signals, mainly due to small denom-
inators in the percentage change computation, we eliminated the extreme 1% of each
fundamental signal. Analysis of the regression residuals indicated existence of some out-
liers. Based on an analysis of studentized residual (greater than 3) and Cook's D statistic
(greater than 1), these were removed. To examine the sensitivity of our findings to this
elimination, we reran regressions (5) and (6) on the original (nontruncated) data and
found that the elimination marginally increased the significance of some coefficients.
However, none of our conclusions depends on the elimination.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
200 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
TABLE 2
Value-Relevance of Fundamental Signals: Restricted Sample
(Coefficient Estimates of Year-by- Year Regressions, 1974-88, of Annual Excess Stock Returns (Rd
Price-Deflated, Pretax Earnings Change (APTEd), and the 12 Fundamental Signals (Sjf) Defined in
The Sample is Restricted to Firms Having Data for All 12 Signals, as Well as for Earnings. Number of
Sample Firms Ranges between 140-180 per Year.)
12
Ri = a + boAPTE, + X_ bjSji + Vi
Across-Years
Means -0.038 0.565 -0.111 -0.106 -0.030 0.020 -0.599 -0.350
13We use the 15 estimated slope coefficients from the yearly regressions to obtain an
across-year mean, standard error, and a t-statistic for each variable. This procedure, Sug-
gested by Bernard [1987], mitigates potential cross-sectional dependence in the regres-
sion residuals.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 201
T A B L E 2-continued
1988) are negative.14 Note that most of the negative coefficients in the
1980s are statistically significant, and the across-1980s mean coefficient
is also significant at the 0.05 level. The Audit Qualification signal has
the expected negative sign in most years examined but is statistically
significant in a few years only. This is probably due to low power, since
only about 5% of the sample firms had qualified audit reports.
This leaves two signals-the Provision for Doubtful Receivables and
R&D-unsupported by the data. The contextual analysis (section 5)
indicates that the provision signal is under certain economic condi-
tions-high inflation-statistically significant in the expected direc-
tion. The results for the R&D signal may be due to misspecification of
our measure-failure to capture the R&D innovation, or to investors'
assessment that industry-relative cuts in R&D will not adversely affect
the future performance of many firms. The latter conjecture is consis-
tent with Hall's [1992] empirical findings that investors' valuation of
R&D capital has continually decreased over the 1980s, from a ratio of
roughly 1.00 (i.e., $1 of R&D capital equals $1 of tangible capital) to
0.2-0.3 in 1990.
14 This might be due to the relatively small number of LIFO cases in our sample fo
1970s (roughly .33 of the sample, compared with .50 in the 1980s) or to an increased in-
vestor awareness of the positive LIFO implications for cash flows during the high-inflation
years 1978-81.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
202 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
TABLE 3
Value-Relevance of Fundamental Signals: Full Sample
(Coefficient Estimates of Year-by-Year Regressions, 1974-88, of Annual Excess Stock Returns (Ri) on the Price-Deflated
Pretax Earnings Change (APTED) and the Nine Fundamental Signals (Si.) Defined in Table 1. The Sample Includes
Firms Having Data on all the Signals Except R&D, Order Backlog, and Provision for Doubtful Receivables.
Number of Sample Firms Ranges between 500-600 per Year. Regression Equation Same as in Table 2.)
Across-Years
Means -0.038 0.560 -0.076 -0.039 -0.009 -0.380 -0.219 -0.368
Comparison of the adjusted R2s of the "full model" (6) with those of
the benchmark, model (5)-reported in columns 15 and 16-indicates
that the examined signals contributed significantly to the "explana-
tion" of excess return variance, beyond reported earnings. In almost every
year, the adjusted R2 of the "full model" is larger than that of the
benchmark, and in some years substantially so. Most of the large R2
differences between the full and benchmark models occur in the
1980s, where the average improvement in R2 is about 70%. The
partial-F test (column 17) indicates that the combined incremental
contribution of the fundamental signals over earnings to the explana-
tion of cross-sectional return variability is statistically significant (.05
level) in every year (except 1974 in table 2).
4. Robustness Checks
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 203
T A B L E 3-continued
Across-Years
Means -0.075 -0.005 -0.025
12 12
Ri = a + boAPTEi + X
Ohlson [1988] and Trueman [1992] argue that the theoretically cor-
rect returns-earnings specification includes both the level of earnings
and earnings change as independent variables. Accordingly, we reran
expressions (5) and (6), adding the deflated (by beginning price) level
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
204 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
TABLE 4
Value-Relevance of Fundamental Signals from a Combined Additive-Multiplicative Model
(Across-Years (1974-88) Mean Coefficient Estimates of Year-by-Year Regressions of Awnntal
Excess Stock Returns (Ri) on Price-Deflated, Pretax Earnings Change (APTE), and the
12 Fundamental Signals (Sji) Defined in Table 1. The Signal Variables in the Regression
Are Represented in Both Additive and Multiplicative Form.)
12 1 2
R= a + b0APTE, + L] b-S.- + X
Coefficient of Additive Coefficient of Multiplicative
Variables Term (Fundamental) Term (APTE x Fundamental)
Intercept -0.0381
Earnings change 0.4162
Inventory -0.0842 -0.099
Receivables -0.0411 0.544'
Capital expenditures -0.010' 0.009
R&D 0.0371 -0.4001
Gross margin 0.3492 -0.593
S&A expenses -0.1732 -1.2292
Doubtful receivables 0.0251 -1.1061
Effective tax -0.3841 a
Order backlog -0.11 02 0.474
Labor force -0.0802 -0.233
FIFO-LIFO -0.017 0.5782
Audit qualification -0.014 -0.8142
l"2Statistically significant at the 0.10 and 0
aSince our definition of the Tax Rate signal is in a multiplicative form (see table 1), we do not have
a multiplicative term for this variable.
15 We used the variable "cash flows from operations," namely, earnings plus noncash
items plus changes in working capital items. Compustat items for this variables are:
[18 + 14 + 50 + 49] + [(5- 34)- (lagged 5 - lagged 34)] - [(4-1) - (lagged 4- lagged 1)].
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 205
The regression analysis described above was replicated with raw re-
turns substituting for excess returns. Overall, the value-relevance of
the fundamental signals with respect to raw returns appears somewhat
stronger than that for excess returns. For example, the average R2 of
the full model (6) over the 1980s, 0.17, is 140% higher than the "earn-
ings alone" R2, 0.07. With respect to the individual fundamentals, the
R&D and the Audit Qualification signals are statistically significant at
the 0.05 level (across all years), whereas they were insignificant with re-
spect to excess returns (table 2).
16Wilson [1986] and Bernard and Stober [1989], on the value-relevance of cash
vs. earnings, are among the few exceptions.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
206 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 207
TABLE 5
Value-Relevance of Fundamental Signals Conditioned o t Macroeconomic Variables
(Coefficient Estimates from Regressions of Excess Stock Returns (Ri) on Price-Deflated Pretax
Earnings Change (APTE), and the 12 Fundamental Signals (Sji) Defined in Table 1. For
Each Economic Variable-Inflation, GNP Growth, and Business Inventories-the Fifteen
Years Examined, 1974-88, Were Ranked and Classified into Three Groups of Five Years
Each: High Values of the Variable, Median, and Low Values. The Regressions Were Run on
the Pooled, Five- Year Data of Each Group. The Estimates for Business Inventories Are Not
Presented in the Table, but Are Commented on in the Text.)
12
Ri= a + b0APTEi + Z bjSji + vi
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
19 In the yearly analysis, we found three years with significant capital expendi
efficients during the five high GNP growth years (in 1977, 1978, and 1988), while there
was only one case of a significant coefficient during the remaining ten years (in 1975).
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANLYSIS 209
The high GNP-low inflation state also yields the largest and most
significant Capital Expenditures coefficient. Apparently, when the
economy is booming and the cost of capital is low, investors penalize
firms that fail to keep up their capital expenditures with other firms in
the industry. Medium GNP-high inflation is the only state where the
R&D signal is significant. The Doubtful Receivables coefficient is larg-
est and most statistically significant for the low GNP-high inflation
state, probably because recession and high inflation lead to bankrupt-
cies and loan defaults, so firms are expected to increase their doubtful
receivables' provisions.
20 0n quality of earnings, see, for example, Bernstein and Siegel [1979], Siegel
[1982], Comiskey [1982], Fabozzi [1978], Imhoff [1989], and Imhoff and Thomas
[1989].
21 There is, of course, a distinction between earnings persistence-the continuation
of earnings at the current level-and growth. It is doubtful, however, whether at this
stage we could clearly discriminate between fundamentals indicating persistence and
those suggesting growth. The message in the fundamentals appears to reflect a combina-
tion of both patterns.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 211
TABLE 6
R. = a + bjAEjAS1 + * +b5AEiAS5- + ui
Fundamental
Score Group 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
1 (highest quality) 1.181 1.179 1.212 1.737 1.162 0.980 0.695 1.543
2 2.015 0.478 0.787 2.392 1.301 1.393 2.265 1.027
3 0.995 0.318 1.161 1.132 1.451 0.520 1.051 1.267
4 0.982 0.968 1.136 2.210 1.441 0.845 0.962 0.761
5 (lowest quality) 1.545 0.288 0.545 0.621 0.992 0.557 0.408 0.972
t-value of "high"
minus "low" -1.40 4.822 3.202 3.842 0.87 2.211 1.661 2.612
Fundamental Score Group 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1 (highest quality) 1.513 0.757 0.436 0.559 0.495 0.623 1.944
2 0.863 1.354 1.237 0.696 0.315 1.094 2.528
3 0.807 1.056 0.658 0.805 0.782 0.773 1.669
4 1.251 0.396 0.400 1.145 0.448 0.955 0.264
5 (lowest quality) 0.442 0.324 0.848 0.500 0.109 0.653 0.578
t-value of "high" minus "low" 5.602 2.021 -2.01 0.40 2.822 -0.19 4.132
23 "High" refers to the top 20% of the firms in the quality persistence d
"low" refers to the bottom 20%. The choice of the top/bottom 20% to represent high/low
quality was made to improve the power of the tests. The analysis was repeated by redefin-
ing high/low as the top/bottom third with no change in results.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
24 The earnings change was measured as (Et - Et 1)IjE1 1j, where E = ann
in the previous tests we used stock price to deflate the earnings change, we use here
1E111 to abstract from any effects of the stock market.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALxYSIS 213
TABLE 7
Response Coefficients forFirms Classified by Fundamental Scores and T
(The Pooled Sample Firms (1974-88) Were First Ranked on a Time-Series Measure of Earnings
Persistence and Then Ranked on Their Aggregate Fundamental Quality Score Measure. The
Firms Were Then Classified into Four Groups According to High-Low Time-Series Persistence
and Quality Score Measures (High and Low Refers to Top/Bottom 20 % of the Ranking). The
Numbers in the Table Are the Earnings Response Coefficients from Regressing Excess Stock
Returns on Annual Earnings Changes for Firms within Each of the Four Groups.)
(4.63) (4.39)
at-valiues.
TABLE 8
Fundamental Signals and Subsequent Earnings Changes
(Sample Firms, Pooled over Years (1974-88), Were Classified into Five Groups according to the
of Current Year's Earnings Change (Relative to Last Yea?). Within Each of These Five Groups,
the Firms Were Classified into Three Earnings Quality Groups according to the Firms'
Aggregate Fundamental Score: High, Medium, and Low Quality. The Numbers in the
Table Are the Average One- to Three- Year-Ahead Earnings Changes for Each Group
of Current Earnings Change and Earnings Quality.)
growth rates is statistically significant, at the .05 level or better. For ex-
ample, for "all cases" (bottom line of table 8), the one-year growth rate
of firms with high-quality scores, 0.49, is significantly larger than the
growth rate of the low-quality firms, 0.10.25 Also as expected, the earn-
ings changes of the low-quality (transitory earnings) groups are in most
25 The grouping of firms in table 8 into five classes of earnings change and
ity classes is, of course, arbitrary. Experimentation with several alternative number of
classes yielded results similar to those in the table.
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
214 BARUCH LEV AND S. RAMU THIAGARAJAN
7. Concluding Remarks
REFERENCES
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS 215
This content downloaded from 203.189.120.14 on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:15:48 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms