Skip to main content
Log in

Security Market Effects Associated with SFAS No. 131: Reported Business Segments

  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study we examine the economic impact of the expected shift from the FASB's segment reporting requirements found in SFAS No. 14 to those found in SFAS No. 131. SFAS No. 131 was the joint effort of the United States' FASB and Canada's Accounting Standards Board (AcSB). It requires firms to report segments based on the firm's internal reporting and management arrangements (the management method) rather than on SFAS No. 14's line-of-business method. One alleged deficiency with the line-of-business method is its flexibility that allowed companies to combine segments. Analysts complained that companies abused this flexibility to conceal information. The management method allegedly is less flexible because companies must report segments externally the same way that they manage them internally. We examine the economic impact of the reporting standard shift by first developing company variables related to the alleged concealment of information under SFAS No. 14. These variables help us to explore why companies combine business segments under the line-of-business method and what costs companies are expected to incur when they are forced to implement the management method. Next we identify a series of dates that chronicle when the market received information about the content of SFAS No. 131. Results of the stock return tests suggest that SFAS No. 131 had a significant impact on firms that previously had the greatest incentives to conceal segment information, consistent with the conjecture that the standard imposed unanticipated costs on affected firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernard, V., “Capital Markets Research during the 1980 A Critical Reviews,” in T. Frecka (Ed), Illinois Ph.D. Jubilee, 1939-1989: The State of Accounting Research as we enter the 1990s, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana, 72-120.

  • Bollen, K. A., Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botosan, C. and M. Harris, “Motivations for a Change in Disclosure Frequency and Its Consequences: An Examination of Voluntary Quarterly Segment Disclosures.” Journal of Accounting Research, Fall, (2000).

  • Brown, P. and J. Warner, “Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies.” Journal of Financial Economics, March, 3-32, (1985).

  • Ettredge, M., S. Y. Kwon and D. Smith, “Competitive Harm and Managers' Attitudes toward SFAS No. 131.” Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, forthcoming.

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No 14: Financial Reporting for Segments of a Business Enterprise, Norwalk, Conn.: FASB 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No 131: Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information, Norwalk, Conn.: FASB 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board, Exposure Draft: Proposed Statement of Financial Accounting Standards: Reporting Disaggregated Information about a Business Enterprise, Financial Accounting Series, Norwalk, Conn.: FASB, January, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Accounting Standards Board, Public Record on SFAS No. 131, Vol. 1-4. Norwalk, Conn.: FASB, April, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giaccotto, C. and J. Sfiridis, “Hypothesis Testing in Event Studies: The Case of Variance Changes.” Journal of Economics and Business, Winter, 349-370, (1996).

  • Harris, M. S., “The Association between Competition and Managers, Business Segment Reporting Decisions.” Journal of Accounting Research, Spring, 111-128, (1998).

  • Hayes, R. and R. Lundholm, “Segment Reporting to the Capital Market in the Presence of a Competitor.” Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, 261-279, (1996).

  • Knutson, P. H., Financial Reporting in the 1990s and Beyond, Charlottesville, VA: Association for Investment Management and Research, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeo and M. Pincus, “Stock Market Behavior and Tax Rule Changes: The Case of the Disallowance of Certain Interest Deductions Claimed by Banks.” The Accounting Review, July, 407-429, (1985).

  • Piotroski, J., “The Inpact of Newly Reported Segment Information on Market Expectations and Stock Prices.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, July, 1999.

  • Porter, M. E., On Competition, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Book, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schipper, K. and R. Thompson, “The Impact of Merger-related Regulations on the Shareholders of Acquiring Firms.” Journal of Accounting Research, Spring, 184-221, (1983).

  • Zellner, A., “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 348-368, (1962).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ettredge, M., Kwon, S.Y. & Smith, D. Security Market Effects Associated with SFAS No. 131: Reported Business Segments. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 18, 323–344 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015424502602

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015424502602

Navigation