IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ufajxx/v69y2013i2p57-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Earnings Manipulation and Expected Returns

Author

Listed:
  • Messod D. Beneish
  • Charles M.C. Lee
  • D. Craig Nichols

Abstract

An accounting-based earnings manipulation detection model has strong out-of-sample power to predict cross-sectional returns. Companies with a higher probability of manipulation (M-score) earn lower returns on every decile portfolio sorted by size, book-to-market, momentum, accruals, and short interest. The predictive power of M-score stems from its ability to forecast changes in accruals and is most pronounced among low-accrual (ostensibly “high-earnings-quality”) stocks. These findings support the investment value of careful fundamental and forensic analyses of public companies.In our study, we investigated the investment value of a particular form of financial analysis associated with the detection of earnings manipulation. The statistical model we examined (the Beneish model) represents a systematic distillation of forensic accounting principles described in the practitioner literature. Specifically, we investigated a potential link between the probability of manipulation (M-score) generated by the Beneish model and subsequent returns.Although relatively few companies are indicted for accounting fraud, the incidence of earnings manipulation among public companies is likely much higher. We posited that the M-score is informative about a company’s expected returns because the “typical earnings manipulator” is a company that is growing quickly, experiencing deteriorating fundamentals, and adopting aggressive accounting practices.Our main hypothesis was that companies that share traits with past earnings manipulators (i.e., those that “look like manipulators”) represent a particularly vulnerable type of growth stock. Although the accounting games they engage in might not be serious enough to warrant regulatory action, we posited that their earnings trajectory is more likely to disappoint investors (i.e., they have lower “earnings quality”). To the extent that the pricing implications of these accounting-based indicators are not fully transparent to investors, companies that “look like” past earnings manipulators will also earn lower future returns.We found that companies with a higher probability of manipulation (M-score) earn lower returns in every decile portfolio sorted by size, book-to-market, momentum, accruals, and short-interest ratio. These returns are economically significant (averaging just below 1% a month on a risk-adjusted basis) and survive a host of risk controls. We further found that a large proportion of the abnormal return is earned in the short three-day windows centered on the next four quarterly earnings releases, suggesting that our results are due to a delayed reaction to earnings-related news rather than risk-based factors. The robustness of these results, even among highly liquid companies, implies that they are unlikely to be fully explained by transaction costs.We performed three sets of analyses to better understand the nature of the information conveyed by M-score. First, we conducted detailed tests on the joint ability of accruals and M-score to predict returns. We found that the dominance of M-score over accruals is evident in both independent sorts and nested sorts. When companies are sorted on these two variables independently, M-score is particularly effective in predicting returns among low-accrual companies (i.e., companies that have “high earnings quality” according to their accruals ranking). For example, in the lowest-accrual quintile—companies typically viewed as “buys”—the spread in size-adjusted returns between high- M-score companies and low- M-score companies is –19.8% over the next 12 months.Second, we used a difference-in-difference test to examine which individual components of the model contributed the most to its incremental predictive power. Our results show that variables related to a predisposition to commit fraud (sales growth, asset quality index, and leverage) are more important than variables associated with the level of aggressive accounting (accruals, days in receivables, and depreciation expense).Third, we found that the Beneish model’s efficacy is associated with its ability to predict the directional change in current-year accruals (i.e., whether the accruals component of current-year earnings will continue into next year or disappear). Specifically, we found that high- M-score companies have income-increasing (-decreasing) accruals that are more likely to disappear (persist) next year; we observed the exact opposite among low- M-score companies. In other words, M-score provides useful information about the future persistence of current-year accruals.Our study adds to the literature on the effective use of financial information by documenting the usefulness of earnings manipulation detection techniques for earnings quality assessment and return prediction. Our evidence on how and why such techniques work suggests new directions for earnings quality analysis and should enhance future efforts to identify potential over- and undervaluations. Overall, our analyses provide substantial support for the use of forensic accounting in equity investing.

Suggested Citation

  • Messod D. Beneish & Charles M.C. Lee & D. Craig Nichols, 2013. "Earnings Manipulation and Expected Returns," Financial Analysts Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(2), pages 57-82, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:69:y:2013:i:2:p:57-82
    DOI: 10.2469/faj.v69.n2.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2469/faj.v69.n2.1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2469/faj.v69.n2.1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ufajxx:v:69:y:2013:i:2:p:57-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ufaj20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.