Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 1540–1593 | Cite as

Financial statement errors: evidence from the distributional properties of financial statement numbers

  • Dan Amiram
  • Zahn Bozanic
  • Ethan Rouen
Article

Abstract

Motivated by methods used to evaluate the quality of data, we create a novel firm-year measure to estimate the level of error in financial statements. The measure, which has several conceptual and statistical advantages over available alternatives, assesses the extent to which features of the distribution of a firm’s financial statement numbers diverge from a theoretical distribution posited by Benford’s Law. After providing intuition for the theory underlying the measure, we use numerical methods to demonstrate that certain error types in financial statement numbers increase the deviation from the theoretical distribution. We corroborate the numerical analysis with simulation analysis that reveals that the introduction of errors to reported revenue also increases the deviation. We then provide empirical evidence that the measure captures financial statement data quality. We first show the measure’s association with commonly used measures of accruals-based earnings management and earnings manipulation. Next, we demonstrate that (1) restated financial statements more closely conform to Benford’s Law than the misstated versions in the same firm-year and (2) as divergence from Benford’s Law increases, earnings persistence decreases. Finally, we show that our measure predicts material misstatements as identified by SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases and can be used as a leading indicator to identify misstatements.

Keywords

Benford’s Law Financial statements errors Accounting quality Earnings management 

JEL Classification

M41 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Patty Dechow (the editor), an anonymous referee, Anil Arya, Rob Bloomfield, Qiang Cheng, Ilia Dichev, Dick Dietrich, Peter Easton, Paul Fischer, Ken French, Joseph Gerakos (CFEA discussant), Jon Glover, Trevor Harris, Colleen Honigsberg, Jeff Hoopes, Gur Huberman, Amy Hutton, Bret Johnson, Steve Kachelmeier, Alon Kalay, Bin Ke, Bill Kinney, Alastair Lawrence, Melissa Lewis-Western, Scott Liao, Sarah McVay (FARS discussant), Rick Mergenthaler, Brian Miller, Brian Mittendorf, Suzanne Morsfield, Suresh Nallareddy, Jeff Ng, Craig Nichols, Mark Nigrini, Doron Nissim, Ed Owens, Bugra Ozel, Oded Rozenbaum, Gil Sadka, Richard Sansing, Richard Sloan, Steve Smith, Steve Stubben, Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi, Dan Taylor, Andy Van Buskirk, Kyle Welch, Jenny Zha (TADC discussant), Amir Ziv, conference participants at the 2014 AAA FARS Midyear Meeting, and workshop participants at Columbia University, Baruch College, Dartmouth College, Florida Atlantic University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, the London Trans-Atlantic Doctoral Conference, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, Syracuse University, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UNC, The University of Texas—Austin, and The University of Utah for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank the PCAOB and the SEC for their insights.

References

  1. Beneish, M. (1999). The detection of earnings manipulation. Financial Analyst Journal, 55(1999), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benford, F. (1938). The law of anomalous numbers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 78, 551–572.Google Scholar
  3. Blodget, H. (2008). Bernie Madoff’s miraculous returns: Month by month. Business Insider, December 12. Accessed August 10, 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Burgstahler, D., & Dichev, I. (1997). Earnings Management to avoid earnings decreases and losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushman, R., & Smith, A (2003). Transparency, financial accounting information, and corporate governance. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Policy Review (April), pp. 65–87.Google Scholar
  6. Carslaw, C. (1988). Anomalies in income numbers: Evidence of goal oriented behavior. The Accounting Review, LXIII(2), 321–327.Google Scholar
  7. Cleary, R., & Thibodeau, J. C. (2005). Applying digital analysis using benford’s law to detect fraud: The dangers of Type I errors. Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(1), 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechow, P., & Dichev, I. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(supplement), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dechow, P., Ge, W., Larson, C., & Sloan, R. (2011). Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 17–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dechow, P., Ge, W., & Schrand, C. (2010). Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 344–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dechow, P., & Skinner, D. (2000). Earnings management: Reconciling the views of accounting academics, practitioners, and regulators. Accounting Horizons, 14(2), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duffie, D., & Lando, D. (2001). Term structures of credit spreads with incomplete accounting information. Econometrica, 69(3), 633–664.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durtschi, C., Hillison, W., & Pacini, C. (2004). The effective use of Benford’s law to assist in the detecting of fraud in accounting data. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 5, 17–34.Google Scholar
  14. Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2013). How pervasive is corporate fraud? Working paper.Google Scholar
  15. Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2004). Cost of equity and earnings attributes. The Accounting Review, 79, 967–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2005). The market pricing of accruals quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 295–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallu, J. (2013). SEC to move past financial crisis cases under chairman white. Bloomberg, April 18. Accessed July 15, 2013.Google Scholar
  18. Grundfest, J., and N. Malenko (2009). Quadrophobia: Strategic Rounding of EPS Data. Working paper.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, T. (1995). A statistical derivation of the significant digit law. Statistical Science, 10, 354–363.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, T. (1996). A note on the distribution of true versus fabricated data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29, 193–228.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. Kothari, S. P., Leone, A., & Wasley, C. (2005). Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2000). Legal determinants of external capital. Journal of Finance, 55(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ley, E. (1996). On the peculiar distribution of the US Stock Indexes’ Digits. The American Statistician, 50(4), 311–313.Google Scholar
  25. Li, F. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenna, F. (2012). Is the SEC’s Ponzi Crusade Enabling Companies to Cook the Books, Enron-Style? Forbes, October 18. Accessed July 15, 2013.Google Scholar
  27. McKenna, F. (2013). Where should SEC start a fraud crack down? Maybe look at fake restatements. Forbes.com, June 18. Accessed July 15, 2013.Google Scholar
  28. Michalski, T., & Stoltz, G. (2013). Do countries falsify economic data strategically? Some evidence that they might. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 591–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrow, J. (2010). Benford’s law, families of distributions and a test basis. Working paper.Google Scholar
  30. Nigrini, M. (1996). Taxpayer compliance application of Benford’s law. Journal of American Taxation Association, 18(1), 72–92.Google Scholar
  31. Nigrini, M. (2012). Benford’s law: Applications for forensic accounting, auditing, and fraud detection. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nigrini, M., & Miller, S. (2009). Data diagnostics using second-order test of Benford’s law. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2), 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Owens, E., Wu, J., & Zimmerman, J. (2013). Business model shocks and abnormal accrual models. Working paper.Google Scholar
  34. Pike, D. Testing for the benford property. Working paper (2008).Google Scholar
  35. Pimbley, J. M. (2014) Benford’s law and the risk of financial fraud. Risk Professional (May), 1–7.Google Scholar
  36. Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (2003a). Financial dependence and growth. American Economic Review, 88(3), 559–586.Google Scholar
  37. Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (2003b). The great reversals: The politics of financial development in the twentieth century. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(1), 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ray, S., & Lindsay, B. (2005). The topography of multivariate normal mixtures. The Annals of Statistics, 33(5), 2042–2065.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richardson, S., Sloan, R., Soliman, M., & Tuna, I. (2005). Accrual reliability, earnings persistence and stock prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 437–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shumway, T. (2001). Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A simple hazard model. The Journal of Business, 74, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, S. (1997). The scientist and Engineer’s guide to digital signal processing. California: California Technical Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, J. (1989). Unusual patterns in reported earnings. The Accounting Review, 5(4), 773–787.Google Scholar
  43. Varian, H. (1972). Benford’s Law. American Statistician, 23, 65–66.Google Scholar
  44. Whalen, D., Cheffers, M., & Usvyatsky, O (2013). 2012 Financial Restatements: A Twelve Year Comparison. Audit Analytics.Google Scholar
  45. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia Business SchoolColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Fisher College of BusinessThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations