| عنوان فارسی مقاله: | بررسی تاثیرات محافظه کاری مشروط بر جریان نقدینگی در حسابداری |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | Discussion of “Cash flow asymmetry: Causes and implications for conditional conservatism research” |
| دانلود مقاله انگلیسی: | برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی با فرمت pdf اینجا کلیک نمائید |
| سال انتشار | 2013 |
| تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | 7 |
| تعداد صفحات ترجمه مقاله | 18 |
| رشته های مرتبط | حسابداری – اقتصاد – مدیریت ارشد کسب و کار |
| مجله | مجله حسابداری و اقتصاد (Journal of Accounting and Economics) |
| دانشگاه | دانشکده وارتون دانشگاه پنسیلوانیا، آمریکا |
| کلمات کلیدی | محافظه کاری مشروط |
| نشریه | Elsevier |
فهرست مطالب:
چکیده
1 مقدمه
2 چکیده یافته های CHT
لیست نتایج
3 CHT در پژوهش (ادبیات)
4 نتیجه گیری
بخشی از ترجمه:
4. نتیجه گیری
پیام من آن است که هر محقق در تحقیقش مسئولیت ارزیابی اعتبار ساختاری محافظه کاری مشروط را برعهده دارد. ارزیابی باید شامل مفهوم سازی روشنی از محافظه کاری مشروط باشد تا بدین طریق سئوال تحقیق بررسی و روی معیارهای ممکن تحلیل مختص نمونه اجرا گردد. CHT با فراهم نمودن مدارکی مفید برای ارزیابی معیار رگرسیون بازده باسو به عنوان یک پروکسی ممکن برای محافظه کاری مشروط در پژوهش شرکت می کند. اما مدارک آنها بدون بررسی اضافی به نمونه های مختلف نباید تعمیم داده شوند و نباید به طور مجزا به آنها نگاه شود.
به مدارک CHT باید در قالب بخشی از پژوهش پیچیده در رابطه با استفاده از معیار رگرسیون بازده باسو به عنوان پروکسی برای محافظه کاری مشروط نگاه شود. دلیل اهمیت این تلاش آن است که محققین حسابداری به معیاری عملی برای محافظه کاری مشروط نیاز دارند و مقالات اخیر توصیه کرده اند که به خاطر تورش های بنیادی و حل نشدنی ، معیار رگرسیون بازده باسو راجع به AT سود را به عنوان پروکسی برای محافظه کاری مشروط کنار می گذاریم. هرچند این انتقادهای آماری مطرح شده اند، اما CHT و دیگران با اطلاع از چگونگی اجتناب از این انتقادها که به ساختار داده ها و اطلاعات بستگی دارند، یا به حداقل رساندن آنها از طریق تعدیل به شیوه نه ترک آن، تلاش می کنند پژوهش را به سمت جلو پیش ببرند.
استفاده و بکارگیری یک متریک AT بر مبنای اقلام تعهدی می تواند به مفهوم سازی مورد انتظار محقق جهت خطاب قرار دادن سئوال تحقیقش نائل گردد. اما این کار می تواند محافظه کاری مشروط مرتبط با محیطی خاص را نیز حذف نماید. این کار می تواند متغیرهای همبسته حذف شده وابسته ای را کنترل نماید که در غیر این صورت بر استنباط ها تاثیر می گذارند، اما الزماً کلیه متغیرهای همبسته حذف شده، حذف نمی شوند. به علاوه، بسته به نمونه، حذف CFO AT به شکل غیر عمدی می تواند باعث ایجاد تورش متفاوتی در پروکسی محافظه کاری مشروط گردد. بالاخره، شایان توجه است که در محیط ها یا نمونه های خاص، به خاطر ساختار داده، مشکلات آماری با معیار رگرسیون معکوس باسو در حقیقت حل نشدنی بوده و هیچ تعدیلی به تخمین عدم تقارن زمانی بر مبنای بازده نمی انجامد که به عنوان پروکسی برای محافظه کاری مشروط مطمئن باشد.
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
1. Introduction Tests of the economic role of conditional conservatism, defined as the outcome of an accounting system with asymmetric recognition of news, require the researcher to propose a proxy for conditional conservatism. The asymmetric timeliness estimate from a regression of earnings on returns proposed by Basu (1997) is one of the most commonly used measures of conditional conservatism. While Basu’s conceptualization of conditional conservatism can be viewed as a breakthrough,1 his asymmetric timeliness (AT) measures should be viewed only as a first step in the difficult process of developing valid empirical constructs for conditional conservatism. Ongoing research is essential to clarify and refine our understanding of the construct and improve our measures of it. In that spirit, CHT should be viewed as only one element of a construct validity assessment of conditional conservatism.2 Researchers should not view CHT’s contribution as the development of a quick-fix solution to measuring conditional conservatism, and I appeal to researchers to read past the last sentence of the abstract and not to blindly follow therecommendation: “Going forward, we recommend researchers use accruals-based asymmetric timeliness measures when testing for conditional conservatism.” It would be irresponsible for a researcher to effectively outsource the task of construct validity analysis to CHT by using accruals AT as a proxy for conditional conservatism purely based on CHT’s recommendation in the abstract. Each individual researcher bears the responsibility for developing a clear understanding of the dimension of conditional conservatism that is the object of interest in his study and for reviewing established metrics, including perhaps an accruals-based AT measure, as possible proxies. CHT’s findings can contribute to the ongoing (and unending) process of improving measurement of conditional conservatism, and their analysis can guide researchers in how to conduct a construct validity analysis, but researchers should not view CHT as the final answer. CHT offer two caveats to their recommendation to use accruals AT as a proxy for conditional conservatism, but they appear only at the end of the introduction. The first caveat is: “In recommending accruals-based measures of DT, we are not claiming that this measure should be used in all conservatism studies going forward. Indeed, it seems the accruals-based approach is likely to be inappropriate in several important settings that are examined by accounting researchers…” This caveat is essential because there is a potential for slippage between CHT’s conceptualization of conditional conservatism and the use of the term “conditional conservatism” in the literature. CHT consider conditional conservatism to be the outcome of an accounting system that involves the application of “…differential verification thresholds for recognizing good news vs. bad news about expected future cash flows (i.e., unrealized gains versus unrealized losses…” (p. 3, emphasis theirs)). Although CHT’s definition is reasonable, this conceptualization is not used universally throughout the literature. Consider, for example, the discussion in Ball, Kothari, and Nikolaev (BKN, 2013a). They describe the Basu metric as deriving from conditional conservatism resulting from firm fundamentals and accounting discretion and even the interaction between the two. Although both CHT and BKN use the same term – “conditional conservatism” – BKN’s notion of what the Basu measure could represent is clearly different. Researchers must carefully assess their own research setting to determine the distinct notion of “conditional conservatism” that is the object of interest in their study. A theory may use the words “conditional conservatism,” but if the theory is based on asymmetric timeliness due to fundamentals, or due to the interaction between fundamentals and the application of the accounting rules, then isolating the accruals component of asymmetric timeliness as a proxy for “conditional conservatism” could be inappropriate. As an example, consider theories about the role of “conditional conservatism” and debt covenants. Given that debt contracts are generally written on total earnings rather than just accruals, these theories are likely to assume that creditors factor CFO AT into the determination of the covenants, regardless of whether they view CFO AT as an indication of “conditional conservatism.” As another example, consider models that assume that cash outflow realizations are more controllable than cash inflow realizations,3 in which case asymmetric timeliness in cash flows is relevant to the decision maker. In summary, the concept of conditional conservatism that underlies the predictions being tested should determine whether including cash flow AT is appropriate to test any given study’s predictions. The remainder of my discussion is dedicated to expanding on CHT’s second essential caveat related to using accruals AT as a proxy for conditional conservatism (i.e., excluding CFO AT from Basu’s return-based metric): “Moreover, we are not claiming that CFO asymmetry is the only factor that researchers may need to control for when testing conjectures about conditional conservatism.” In Section 2, I provide a condensed summary of CHT’s findings. The nuances of the findings, and the details of their sample and setting, are important when considering how and whether to “control for” CFO asymmetry by using accruals AT as a proxy for conditional conservatism. In Section 3, I describe the findings of three studies that are part of the larger literature on the Basu metric as a measure of conditional conservatism. These summaries provide examples of factors other than CFO asymmetry that researchers may need to control for, and on the flip side, they illustrate that controlling for CFO asymmetry may eliminate legitimate sources of conditional conservatism. Bear in mind that my coverage of the literature is incomplete. There are numerous studies on conditional conservatism, in general, and the Basu return measure, in particular. The scholarly debate about the Basu return measure as a proxy for conditional conservatism is vibrant, as it should be. I cite a limited number of examples; I apologize to the authors of the many papers I do not include
| عنوان فارسی مقاله: | بررسی تاثیرات محافظه کاری مشروط بر جریان نقدینگی در حسابداری |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | Discussion of “Cash flow asymmetry: Causes and implications for conditional conservatism research” |
