浅谈对会计选择的实证研究外文翻译-会计审计(编辑修改稿)

浅谈对会计选择的实证研究外文翻译-会计审计(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

unting choice. Consideration of implementation decisions as key elements of accounting choice seems consistent with the behavior of several groups that evaluate financial reporting outes. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), charged with oversight of the United States financial reporting system, seems to focus more on implementation decisions than on accounting method choice. In particular, speeches by SEC missioners and staff do not focus on accounting method choice, but rather on implementation decisions (see, for example, Levitt [1998]). Recent SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins (SABs) also focus entirely on plex implementation issues of materiality judgments (SAB No. 99), timing and amounts of restructuring charges (SAB No. 100) and revenue recognition (SAB No. 101).The results of these studies have at least two implications which bear on FLV’s discussion. First, they suggest that it is not choice of rules or treatments within GAAP (such as LIFO versus FIFO) that shareholders, or parties presumptively acting in the interests of shareholders, find troublesome。 rather it is the judgments that managers make in implementing GAAP that are problematic. Thus, one implication is that researchers should focus less on accounting method choice and more on implementation decisions. I elaborate on this issue in section 4.The second implication of these studies pertains to FLV39。 s call for research on the consequences of accounting choice. The research on AAER39。 s and class action litigation bears directly on the costs of bad accounting implementations, and suggests that quantifying the adverse effects of bad accounting (., shareholder, bondholder and possibly taxpayer losses。 increases in the cost of capital or loss of access to the capital markets) might be an appropriate extension of this literature. Arguably, managers and others are probably more interested in direct and objective measures of the benefits of good accounting implementations. Identifying benefits has proven more difficult than identifying costs。 see, for example, Botosan [1997].3. Implementation Decisions Versus Method Choice Decisions. Responses to the remendation that researchers focus on implementation decisions.A focus on implementation decisions can take either an aggregated or a disaggregated approach. The aggregated approach is perhaps best exemplified by the significant body of work examining discretionary and nondiscretionary accruals. The disaggregated approach features a focus on individual accounting items known to require substantial managerial judgment and to have a significant impact on reported profitability (., loan loss reserves in banks (Wahlen [1994], among others) and revisions of claim loss reserves among propertycasualty insurers, Petroni [1992]). The aggregated approach has the advantage, in FLV39。 s framework, of considering multiple choices or at least the aggregated outes of multiple choices. The disaggregated approach has the potential advantage, in FLV’s framework, of yielding precise directional predictions based on the researcher39。 s understanding and analysis of how decision makers trade off the incentives associated with the accounting object of study. The approach also has the advantage of responding to FLV’s suggestion that researchers use their accounting expertise to refine research designs on accounting choice. A good example of the application of expertise and the disaggregated approach is Miller and Skinner’s [1998] investigation of deferred。