بررسی انتقادی انتخابی تحقیقات حسابداری مالی

This essay provides a selective critical review of the financial accounting literature focusing primarily on accounting valuation including implied costs of equity capital, empirical accounting proxies, and frictions in accounting theory. In the opinion of this author, accounting research in these areas is often too complacent, suffering from a lack of critical reasoning. Complacency distorts research innovation and hinders the long -run sustainability of accounting academe in the area of financial accounting. The examples dis cussed in this essay include (but are not limited to) the issue of structural modeling and model falsifiability; determining whether a firm is over or underpriced based on valuation models that do not allow for such phenomena; arbitrarily ‘‘merging’’ two disparate models one for valuation and one for the discount rate ; failing to appreciate the empirical limitations induced by risk -neutral valuation models in estimating costs of capital; employing the same proxies over and over again that ostensibly have no underlying theoretical base stistimating regressions that necessarily yield biased coefficients when the econometrics literature provides ready solutions; and generating complex models absent the frictions that are essential to the issue being researched.

This essay provides a selective critical review of the financial accounting literature focusing primarily but not exclusively on empirical archival research. Selectivity is necessary given the many topics that comprise financial accounting research. Criticality is also called for because the field in my view is overly complacent regarding its scientific methodology, its many dubious proxy constructs and the rather cavalier attitude that financial accounting empiricists (and sometimes even theorists) take to financial accounting theory. Lest I b e accused of excessive hubris, let me state at the outset that my own work is not immune from the criticisms raised in this essay. I will focus my review primarily on three financial accounting research topics: accounting valuation including implied costs of equity capital, empirical accounting proxies, and frictions in accounting theory. I concentrate on these topics because they are central to accounting research and because they are related to my own research interests. The penultimate section discusses more general issues. In what foll ows, Section 2 rev i ews the ac counting v aluat i on and im plied c ost o f ca p it al, literature. Se ction 3 co mments o n p roxies in financia l accoun ting research . Section 4 focu ses o n a cc ounting t heor y a nd un-modeled f rict ions. Se c t i o n 5 dis cusses the relation betw ee n financia l acco unting res ea rch a nd the refereei ng p roce ss. Section 6 briefly co n c l u d e s.

This essay provides a selective critical review of the financial accounting literature focusing primarily on three research topics: accounting valuation including implied costs of capital, empirical accounting proxies, and un-modeled frictions in accounting theory. In the opinion of this author, accounting research in these areas is often too complacent, primarily in its lack critical reasoning. Empiricists often fail to understand the limitations of the available models and end up misapplying (abusing) them. The examples discussed in this essay include structural modeling and model falsifiability; determining whether a firm is over or underpriced based on valuation models that do not allow for such phenomena; arbitrarily ‘‘merging’’ two disparate models—one for valuation and one for the discount rate; and failing to appreciate the empirical limitations induced by risk neutral valuation models in estimating costs of capital. Other examples of lack of critical reasoning include employing the same proxies over and over again that ostensibly have no underlying theoretical bases; estimating regressions that necessarily yield biased coefficients when the econometrics literature provides solutions; and generating complex models absent the frictions that are essential to the issue being researched. The intent of this essay is not simply to be critical but to raise needed discussion and, perhaps, even generate new tools and concepts that will move the profession forward. However, I a m pessimistic. After all, consider the minimal impact that other critical papers have had on the financial accounting literature status quo. Nevertheless, the long run offers hope. I believe it is incumbent on those of us who are involved in PhD programs to ensure that our empirically-oriented students are not only able to read theory but to do theory as well. At a minimum, we would do well to train our students to appreciate the subtle interplay between theory and empirics and to explain to them why we should test model implications rather than model assumptions. We also must teach them to be more critical of published papers and to question the status quo. Finally, we must ensure that our students understand scientific methodology such as why hypotheses need to be falsifiable, and to be aware that in accounting, as in other fields, scholars are loath to reject their pet theories even when the empirics seems to suggest that they should be rejected. Hopefully, if we do our teaching job properly, these students, as they become journal referees and editors, will turn the system around for the better.