Advertisement

Efficient Income Measures and the Partially Regulated Firm

  • Shimon Awerbuch
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy book series (TREP, volume 3)

Abstract

Utility company managers (and most business people) are often surprised to learn that accounting income and rate-of-return measures have little economic significance and do not offer much insight into the profitability of a venture or firm. Why the serious shortcomings of the accounting earnings measure are not more widely recognized is quite puzzling in view of the fact that the academic literature has been dealing with this problem for at least 25 years.1 So significant are the errors associated with the accounting rate of return (ARR), according to some researchers, that it “provide[s] almost no information about the [true] economic rates of return” of American corporations (Fisher and McGowan 1983, 82). Nonetheless, the ARR continues to be widely followed, and, in the regulatory context, forms the basis for ratemaking, a role for which it was certainly never intended and for which it is poorly suited (Awerbuch 1986, 20–21).

Keywords

Public Utility Financial Account Standard Board Market Entrant Present Value Capital Recovery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anthony, Robert N. 1986. “Accounting Rates of Return.”American Economic Review 76 (1): 244–246.Google Scholar
  2. Anton, Hector A. 1956. “Depreciation, Cost Allocation and Investment Decisions.” Accounting Research (April): 117–134.Google Scholar
  3. Awerbuch, Shimon. 1985. “Return on Equity Ratemaking: Biased Earnings and Market-to-Book Ratios Due to Obsolescence and Excess Capacity.” In The Impact of Deregulation and Market Forces on Public Utilities, edited by Patrick V. Mann and Harry M. Trebing. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  4. Awerbuch, Shimon. 1986. “Accounting Traditions and the Determination of Regulated Return.” Presented at the Advanced Workshop in Regulation and Public Utility Economics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  5. Awerbuch, Shimon. 1988. “Accounting Rate of Return.” American Economic Review (June).Google Scholar
  6. Awerbuch, Shimon, and Russel Boisjoly. 1988. “The Use of Accounting Rates of Return in Regulation.” Working Paper, College of Management Science, University of Lowell.Google Scholar
  7. Beaver, William H. 1981. Financial Reporting: An Accounting Revolution. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Beaver, William H., and Landsman, W.R. 1983. Incremental Information Content of Statement 33 Disclosures. Stamford, CT: FASB (November).Google Scholar
  9. Belkaoui, Ahmed. 1981. Accounting Theory. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  10. Benston, George J., and Krasney, M.A 1978. “The Economic Consequence of Financial Accounting Statements.” In Economic Consequence of Financial Accounting Standards. Stamford, CT: FASB (July): 161–252.Google Scholar
  11. Bierman, Harold. 1974. “Regulation, Implied Revenue Requirements and Method of Depreciation.” Accounting Review (July).Google Scholar
  12. Bidwell, Miles O. 1985. Direct Testimony Before the N.Y. State P.S.C. in the Matter of the Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. Case No. 29069/70 (August).Google Scholar
  13. Bower, Richard S. 1985. “The Capital Recovery Question.” Resources and Energy 7:7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brealey, Richard, and S.C. Myers. 1984. Principle of Corporate Finance. 2d ed. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Brief, Richard P. (ed.) 1987. Estimating the Economic Rate of Return From Accounting Data. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  16. Canning, J.B. 1929. The Economics and Accountancy. New York: Roland.Google Scholar
  17. Crew, Michael A., and Nancy P. Karen. 1984. “Proposal for Reforming Depreciation Schedules in the Regulated Telecommunications Industry: The Case of New York Telephone.” Advanced Workshop in Public Utility Regulation and Economics, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. Crew, Michael A., and Paul R. Kleindorfer. 1987. The Economics of Public Utility Regulation. London, Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Edwards, Edgar O., and P.W. Bell. 1961. Theory and Measurement of Business Income. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1978. “Statement of Financial Accounting Concept No. 1: Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises.” Stamford, CT: FASB (November).Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Franklin M., and J.J. McGowan. 1983. “On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monopoly Profits.” American Economic Review 73 (No. 1, March): 82–97.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, Irving. 1906. The Nature of Capital and Income. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Fisher, J.C., and Pry, R.H. 1971. “A Simple Substitution Model of Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change: 75–88.Google Scholar
  24. Gordon, M.J. 1967. “An Economist’s View of Profit Measurement.” In Profits in the Modern Economy, edited by H.W. Stevenson and J.R. Nelson. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Griffith, Mark, and Terry Robinson. 1985. “Economic Value and Capital Recovery: A Regulatory Economic Model.” Presented at the Avanced Workshop in Regulation and Public Utility Economics, Rutgers University, Newark, N.J.Google Scholar
  26. Harcourt, G.C. 1965. “The Accountant in a Golden Age.” Oxford Economic Papers, Series 2, 17 (March): 66–80.Google Scholar
  27. Hicks, John R. 1946. Value and Capital. 2d ed. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hicks, John R. 1969. “The Measurement of Capital.” Proceedings of the 37th Session, London, Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 43:253–263; Reprinted in Brief (1987).Google Scholar
  29. Hicks, John R. 1979. “The Concept of Income in Relation to Taxation and to Business Management.” Proceedings of the 35th Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance; Reprinted in Brief (1987).Google Scholar
  30. Hotelling, Harold. 1925. “A General Mathematical Theory of Depreciation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 20 (September): 340–353.Google Scholar
  31. Ijiri, Yuji. 1980. “Recovery Rate and Cash Flow Accounting.” Financial Executive (March): 54–56.Google Scholar
  32. Kay, J.A. 1976. “Accountants, Too, Could be Happy in a Golden Age: The Accountants Rate of Profit and the Integral Rate of Return.” Oxford Economic Papers 28 (November): 447–460.Google Scholar
  33. Kolbe, Lawrence. 1985. “How Can Regulated Rates—and Companies—Survive Competition?” Public Utilities Fortnightly (April).Google Scholar
  34. Kolbe, A Lawrence, James A. Read, Jr., and G. Hall. 1984. The Cost of Capital. Cambridge, MA- MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kraus, A., and R.J. Huefner. 1972. “Cash-Flow Pattern and the Choice of a Depreciation Method.” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 3 (Spring): 316–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindahl, Erik. 1939. Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  37. Luckett, Peter F. 1984. “ARR vs. IRR: A Review and Analysis.” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 2 (No. 2, Summer): 213–231.Google Scholar
  38. Melicher, Ronald W. 1987. “The Unbundling of Traditional Measures of Rate of Return by Regulated and Unregulated Services.” In New Regulatory and Management Strategies in a Changing Market Environment, edited by H. Trebing. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Public Utilities, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  39. Myers, S., L. Kolbe, and M. Tye. “Inflation and Rate of Return Regulation.” Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  40. Myers, Stewart C. 1972. “The Application of Finance Theory to Public Utility Rate Cases.” Bell Journal of Economics 3 (Spring): 59–97.Google Scholar
  41. Navarro, Peter, B.C. Peterson, and T.R. Stauffer, “A Critical Comparison of Utility-Type Ratemaking Methodologies in Oil Pipeline Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics 12 (No. 2, Autumn): 392–412.Google Scholar
  42. Salamon, Gerald, L. 1985. “Accounting Rates of Return.” American Economic Review 75 (No. 3, June): 495–504.Google Scholar
  43. Sherman, Roger. 1972. “The Rate of Return Regulated Public Utility Firm is Schizophrenic.” Applied Economics 4 (March): 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solomon, Ezra. 1970. “Alternative Rate of Return Concepts and Their Implications for Utility Regulation.” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 1 (No. 1, Spring): 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Solomons, David. 1986. Making Accounting Policy, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stauffer, Thomas R. 1980. The Measurement of Corporate Rates of Return. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sterling, Robert R. 1970. Theory of the Measurement of Enterprise Income. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  48. Suelflow, James E. 1973. Public Utility Accounting. East Lansing, MI: Institute of Public Utilities, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  49. Treynor, Jack L. 1972. “Discussion.” Empirical Research in Accounting: Selected Studies. Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 42–44.Google Scholar
  50. Winn, Darryl. 1978. “The Potential Effect of Alternative Accounting Measures on Public Policy and Resource Allocation.” In Economic Consequences of Financial Accounting Standards, FASB Research Report, Stamford, CT (July).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimon Awerbuch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations