盈余质量分析的评价指标体系外文翻译

原文：
Analysis of earnings quality evaluation index system Earnings quality is an important aspect of evaluating an entity's financial health, yet investors, creditors, and other financial statement users often overlook it. Earnings quality refers to the ability of reported earnings to reflect the company's true earnings, as well as the usefulness of reported earnings to predict future earnings. Earnings quality also refers to the stability, persistence, and lack of variability in reported earnings. The evaluation of earnings is often difficult, because companies highlight a variety of earnings figures: revenues, operating earnings, net income, and pro forma earnings. In addition, companies often calculate these figures differently. The income statement alone is not useful in predicting future earnings.
The SEC and the investing public are demanding greater assurance about the quality of earnings. Analysts need a more suitable basis for earnings estimates. Credit rating agencies are under increased scrutiny of their ratings by the SEC. Such comfort level and information is not provided in the audit report or the financial statements. Only 27% of finance executives recently surveyed by CFO “feel 'very confident' about the quality and completeness of information available about public companies” [“It's Better (and Worse) Than You Think,” by D. Dupree May 3, 2004].
There are a variety of definitions and models for assessing earnings quality. The authors have proposed a uniform, independent definition of quality of earnings that allows for the development of an Earnings Quality Assessment (EQA) model. The proposed EQA model evaluates the degree to which a company's income statement reports its true earnings and the extent to which it can predict and anticipate future earnings.
Earnings Quality Defined
A variety of earnings-quality definitions exist. Teats [“Quality of Earnings: An Introduction to the Issues in Accounting Education,” Issues in Accounting Education, 17 (4), 2002] states that “some consider quality of earnings to encompass the underlying economic performance of a firm, as well as the accounting standards that report on that underlying phenomenon; others consider quality of earnings to refer only to how well accounting earnings convey information about the underlying phenomenon.” Pratt defines earnings quality as “the extent to which net income reported on the income statement differs from true earnings” [in F. Hodge, “Investors'
Perceptions of Earnings Quality, Auditor Independence, and the Usefulness of Audited Financial Information,” Accounting Horizons 17 (Supplement), 2003]. Penman [“The Quality of Financial Statements: Perspectives from the Recent Stock Market Bubble,” Accounting Horizons 17 (Supplement), 2003] indicates that quality of earnings is based on the quality of forward earnings as well as current reported earnings. Shipper and Vincent [“Earnings Quality,” Accounting Horizons 17 (Supplement), 2003] define earnings quality as “the extent to which reported earnings faithfully represent Hicks Ian income,” which includes “the change in net economic assets other than from transactions with owners.”
Using various definitions of earnings quality, researchers and analysts have developed several models. The Sidebar summarizes eight models for measuring earnings quality. The models are used for very narrow, specific purposes. While the criteria used in these definitions and models overlap, none provide a comprehensive view of earnings quality. For example, the primary purpose of the Center for Financial Research and Analysis (CRFA)'s model is to uncover methods of earnings manipulation. Of the eight models discussed, only the Lev-Thiagarajan and Empirical Research Partners models have been empirically tested for evidence of usefulness related to quality of earnings. Lev and Thiagarajan's findings confirm that their fundamental (earnings) quality score correlates to earnings persistence and growth, and that subsequent growth is higher in high quality–scoring groups. Empirical Research Partners' model is based in part on methodology developed and tested by Potosi, whose findings indicate a positive relationship between scores based on the model and future profitability.
The following summarizes the criteria considered in each of the eight models for measuring earnings quality.
Center for Financial Research and Analysis: Four criteria to uncover methods used to manipulate earnings. Report includes financial summary, accounting policy analysis, discussion of areas of concern
Empirical Research Partners: Three components: net working-capital growth rate, net concurrent assets, deferred taxes; incremental earnings and free cash flow production relative to each new dollar of revenue or book value; and nine financial indicators, put together for a single gauge of fundamentals. Items viewed favorably:
positive return on assets and operating cash flow; increases in return on assets, current ratio, gross margin, asset turnover; operating cash flow that exceeds net income.
Items viewed unfavorably: increases in long-term debt-to-assets; presence of equity offerings. Each indicator given a 1 if favorable, an O if not; scores aggregated on an O to 9 scales.
Ford Equity Research: Earnings variability is minimum standard error of earnings for past eight years, fitted to an exponential curve. Growth persistence considers earnings growth consistency over 10 years; projected earnings growth rate is applied to normal earnings to derive long-term value. Operating earnings calculated by excluding unusual items, such as restructuring charges and asset write-downs; earnings trend analysis done on this adjusted figure. Repurchases of an entity's own shares are analyzed to determine if results are favorable.
Lev-Thiagarajan: Each fundamental is assigned a value of 1 for positive signal, O for negative signal. Each of 12 factors is equally weighted to develop aggregate fundamental score. Negative signals include: decrease in gross margins disproportionate to sales; disproportionate (versus industry) decreases in capital expenditures and R&D; increases in S&A expenses disproportionate to sales; and unusual decreases in effective tax rate. Inventory and accounts receivable signals measure percent change in each (individually) minus percent change in sales; inventory increases exceeding cost of sales increases and disproportionate increases in receivables to sales are considered negative. Unusual changes in percent change of provision for doubtful receivables, relative to percent change in gross receivables, are also viewed negatively. Percent change in sales minus percent change in order backlog is considered an indication of future performance.
Merrill Lynch (David Hawkins) (see earnings quality: the establishment of a real 360 View, 2002). Higher total capital ratio (pre-tax operating return on total capital) returns a higher quality of earnings equivalent. Liquidity ratio above 1.0 (net income figure how close it is to achieve positive cash) that the higher quality of earnings. Re-investment in productive assets ratio above 1.0 (committed to maintaining the fixed asset investment) that a higher quality of earnings. The ratio of
effective tax rate for all companies meet or exceed the average level (dependence on low-tax report) that the higher quality of earnings. Model also believes that long-term credit rating and Standard & Poor's S & P earnings and dividend growth and stability of rank-based, over the past 10 years.
Raymond James & Partners (Michael Krensavage) (also see the earnings quality monitoring, 2003.) 1 (worst) to 10 (best) rating as a benchmark of 10 exclusive distributions; weighted average rating in the combined to determine the earnings quality scores. Low earnings quality indicators: increase in receivables; earnings growth due to reduced tax rates, interest capitalization, high frequency / time scale of the project. In a recent major acquisition made during the punishment. Practice of conservative pension fund management and improve the R & D budget faster than revenue in return. Cash flow growth and the related net income and gross margin of profit a positive impact on quality improvement.
Standard & Poor's core earnings (see also the technical core earnings Bulletin, October 2002). Attempts to give a more accurate performance of the existing business of the real. Core benefits include: Employee stock option expenses; restructuring charges from ongoing operations; offset the depreciation of business assets or deferred pension costs; purchased research and development costs; merger / acquisition costs; and unrealized gains and losses on hedging. Excluded items: Goodwill impairment charges, pension income; litigation or insurance settlements, from the sale of assets (loss) and the provisions of the previous year's expenses and the reversal.
UBS (David Bianca) (also see S & P 500 accounting information quality control, 2003.) Comparison of GAAP operating income; the difference between the net one time standard. Employee stock option expenses charged to operating profit. Assuming the market value of return on pension assets to adjust interest rates or the discount rate times. Health care costs adjusted for inflation, if the report is 300 basis points more than the S & P 500 companies are expected weighted average. Joint Oil Data Initiative is AUTHOR_AFFILIATION Bell ovary, CPA, is a Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Don E. Incoming, CPA, graduate students, professors, and Donald E &
Beverly Flynn is Chairman of the holder at Marquette University. Michael D • Akers, CPA, CMA, CFE, CIA, CBM, is a Professor and Head of the Department.
Of the 51 criteria/measurements used in the eight models, only eight (acquisitions; cash flow from operations/net income; employee stock options; operating earnings; pension fund expenses; R&D spending; share buyback/issuance; and tax-rate percentage) are common to two models, and only two (gross margin and one-time items) overlap in three models.
The first step, then, is to develop a standard definition of earnings quality. One of the objectives of Fast’s Conceptual Framework is to assist investors in making investment decisions, which includes predicting future earnings. The Conceptual Framework refers not only to the reliability (or truthfulness) of financial statements, but also to the relevance and predictive ability of information presented in financial statements. The authors' definition of quality of earnings draws from Pratt's and Penman's definitions. The authors define earnings quality as the ability of reported earnings to reflect the company's true earnings and to help predict future earnings. They consider earnings stability, persistence, and lack of variability to be key. As Beaver indicates: “current earnings are useful for predicting future earnings … [and] future earnings are an indicator of future dividend-paying ability” (in M. Bauman, “A Review of Fundamental Analysis Research in Accounting,” Journal of Accounting Literature 15, 1996).
Earnings Quality Assessment (EQA)
The authors propose an Earnings Quality Assessment (EQA) that provides an independent measure of the quality of a company's reported earnings. The EQA consists of a model that uses 20 criteria that impact earnings quality (see Exhibit 2 ), applied as a “rolling evaluation” of all p eriods presented in the financial statements. The EQA is more comprehensive than the eight models presented, considering revenue and expense items, as well as one-time items, accounting changes, acquisitions, and discontinued operations. The model also assesses the stability, or lack thereof, of a company, which leads to a more complete understanding of its future earnings potential.
The criteria were drawn from the eight models discussed, including the 10 criteria overlapping two or more models. The EQA evaluator assigns a point value ranging from 1 to 5 for each of the 20 criteria, with a possible total of 100 points. A
score of 1 indicates a negative effect on earnings quality, and a score of 5 indicates a very positive effect on earnings quality. EQA scores, then, can range from 20 to 100. Similar to the grading methods for bond ratings, grades are assigned based on the following scale: 85–100 points = A, 69–84 points = AB, 53–68 points = B, 35–51 points = BC and 20–34 points = C. While the EQA evaluator needs to use professional judgment in assigning scores to each of the criteria, the guidelines in Exhibit 2 are recommended.
The Application of EQA
To illustrate the process of applying the EQA, the authors chose two large pharmaceutical companies, Merck and with. Each of the authors independently applied the EQA to Merck's and Width’s 2003 financial statements, and then met to discuss their results. Based upon each individual assessment and the subsequent discussion, they reached an agreed-upon score, presented in Exhibit 3 .
This process is similar to what an engagement team would go through. Each member would complete the EQA independently, and then the group would meet as a whole to discuss the assessment and reach a conclusion. This process allows for varying levels of experience, and takes into account each team member's perspective based on exposure to various areas of the company. The audit team's discussion is also helpful when one member finds an item that another might not have, which may explain variances in the scores assigned by each individual.
For the illustration, the EQA was based solely on data provided in the financial statements. The authors found a high level of agreement on the quality of earnings measures, and there was little variation in the scores for both companies. One would expect even less variation when a group more intimately exposed to an organization, such as the audit engagement team, completes the EQA. The consistency provided by use of the EQA model would enhance the comfort level of users of the financial statements and the EQA.
Need for Further Development
There is significant need for the development of a uniform definition and a consistent model to measure earnings quality. This article provides such a definition, positing that the quality of earnings includes the ability of reported earnings to reflect the company's true earnings, as well as the usefulness of reported earnings to predict future earnings. The authors propose an Earnings Quality Assessment (EQA) model that is consistent with this definition. The EQA recognizes many of the fragilities of
GAAP, and takes into account factors that are expected to affect future earnings but that are not explicitly disclosed in the financial statements.
The authors propose that auditors conduct the EQA and issue a public report. Auditors' EQA reports will provide higher-quality information to financial statement users and meet the SEC's demand for greater assurance about the reliability of earnings figures.
Source: MichaelD.Akers, 2005. “Analysis of earnings quality evaluation index system” the CPA journal. November.pp.199.
译文：
盈余质量分析的评价指标体系
盈余质量是债权人评价一个实体的财务状况的重要方面，但投资者和其他财务报表使用者往往忽略它。

盈余质量是指盈利能力的报告，以反映公司的真实盈利，以及盈利报告的有用性，即预测未来盈利。

盈余质量也指的是稳定，持久性和盈利报告缺乏变异的研究。

评价收入往往是困难的，因为公司突出的盈利数字品种多：收入营业收入，净利润和预计收益。

此外，公司计算这些数字的方法经常是不同的，损益表本身并不是在预测未来收益的有用性。

美国证券交易委员会和投资大众要求更高的与收益有关的质量保证。

分析家需要一个更合适的估计盈利基础。

信用评级机构的评级下，增加了由美国证券交易委员会审议。

这样的舒适程度和信息不会提供审计报告或财务报表。

只有27％的金融高管最近被首席财务官调查说到“对于公司的质量和完整性有关的公共资料感觉非常有信心”。

有许多优质品种的定义收入和模型评估。

作者们提出了一个统一的，独立的盈余质量的定义，它允许了一个盈余质量评估（局）模式的发展。

拟议的质量评估模型在于评价一个公司的利润表报告其真实收入和在何种程度上可以预测和预见未来的收益的程度。

盈余质量定义。

收益质量有多种定义。

蒂茨【“收益质量：会计教育问题入门,”见会计教育问题期刊，第17卷第4期，2002年】指出：一些人认为收入的质量，以包括基本经济表现的公司，以及会计准则的报告对这一现象的揭示。

考虑质量，收入仅指会计盈余以及如何传递信息。

又有笔者指出，盈余质量是在当前的盈利报告盈利的基础上提出的质量。

席佩尔和文森特盈余品质定义为“在何种程度上公布的业绩其忠实代表希克斯收入”，其中包括净变化中的经济交易以外的其他资产。

使用和分析各种定义的收益质量，研究人员已经开发了几种模式。

这些模型可用于非常狭窄、具体的用途。

尽管这些定义和模型所用的标准重叠，都没有提供一个全面的看法的收益质量。

例如，对于金融研究和分析中心的模型的主要目的是揭示操纵收益的方法。

讨论的八个型号，只有列夫- Thiagarajan与实证研究合作伙伴模式已经实证检验得出有关盈利质量有用的证据。

列弗与Thiagarajan
的调查结果证实，他们的基本（收入）的质量是相关盈利持续性和经济增长的得分。

实证研究合作伙伴的模式是部分基于对方法论进行测试开发，并且其研究结果表明未来盈利能力和该模型之间是成正相关的。

以下总结了盈余质量的测量标准的八款模型。

财务研究和分析中心：用三个标准来发现操纵盈余的方法。

包括财务报告摘要，会计政策分析，所关注领域的讨论。

实证研究合作伙伴：三个组成部分：净营运资金的增长速度，净非流动资产，递延税款；增量收入和自由现金流生产之间的相对收入或账面价值的新的美元；以及九个财务指标，放一块儿形成一个单一的衡量基础。

项目被看好：积极的资产回报和营运现金流量，资产报酬率、流动比率、毛利率、资产周转率的提高；经营性现金流超过净收入。

视为不好的项目：长期负债对资产比率的提高，股票发行的存在。

好的指标得1分，不好的得0分，总分数从0分一直排到9分。

福特股票研究：收入的最低标准误差变异是对过去八年的收益指数的曲线拟合。

认为盈利增长应与持续超过10年的增长保持一致；预测盈利增长率是适用于正常收入得出的长期价值。

经营收益排除不寻常的项目（如重组费用和资产减值）并进行计算，并在收入趋势分析图上做出调整。

自己对一个实体的股份回购进行分析，以确定是否结果是有利的。

列夫-Thiagarajan：每个正面的信号值得1分，负面信号值得0分，每12个因素是同等重要的发展总体基本分数。

消极信号包括：不相称的销售毛利率下降；不相称的（相对于行业）降低资本支出和研发；增加在S＆A费用不成比例的销售，而且实际税率不寻常的下降。

库存和应收账款信号测量每个（个人）在销售负百分比变化的百分比变化，库存增加超过销售增加和应收账款增加的成本不成比例，被认为是不利的销售。

在百分之呆账应收款项，相对于应收款项总额的百分之改变，提供不寻常改变的变化，也有些否定的。

劳动力减少和无保留审计意见被看好。

美林（大卫霍金斯）：（另见盈余质量：一个现实的360度视角查看的建立，2002年）。

更高的总资本比率（总资本税前经营回报）返回等同于较高的收益质量。

变现率在1．8以上（纯收入数字有多近，是实现正现金）表示较高的收益质量。

生产性资产的再投资比率在1．0以上（承诺保持固定资产投资）
表明较高的收益质量。

有效税率的比例达到或超过所有公司的平均水平（关于报告的依赖程度低税率）表示较高的收益质量。

在过去10年型号还以标准普尔长期信用评级和标准普尔秩盈利和股息增长稳定为基础。

雷蒙德詹姆斯事务所（迈克尔克瑞斯）：（亦见盈余品质监测，2003。

）为1（最差）到10（最好）评级为基准，每10个专有的分配；与加权平均收视率相结合，确定收益质量分数。

低收益质量指标：应收款增加；由于减少税率的盈利增长，利息资本化，高频率一次性项目的规模。

实践保守的养老基金管理，提高研发预算快于收入的回报。

现金流的增长以及相关纯收入和毛利率对盈利质量的提高产生积极影响。

标准普尔核心盈利（又见核心盈利技术通报，2002年10月）。

尝试赋予更准确的现行业务的真正性能表现。

核心收益包括：员工股票期权开支；从正在进行的业务重组费用冲减折旧或待摊的经营性资产，退休金成本；购买的研发费用；合并，收购费用；及未变现收益和对冲损失。

排除的项目：商誉减损费用，退休金所得；诉讼或保险费问题，从出售资产收益（亏损）及前一年的费用和规定中逆转。

瑞银（大卫比安科）：（亦见标准普尔500会计信息质量监控，2003年）比较公认会计准则经营的收益差额从员工股票期权开支的营业利润中扣除。

假设对退休金资产回报的市场价值按利率或贴现率调整。

卫生保健费用通货膨胀调整，如果报道为300个基点，是标准普尔500家公司预计加权平均水平。

在8种模型中用到的51个标准计量指标中，只有8个（收购；纯收入运营现金流；员工股票期权，经营的收益；养老保险基金支出，研发支出；股票回购/发行；和纳税率百分比）是两种模型共同用到的，只有2个（毛利率和一次性项目）是三种模型中都用到的。

第一步，那么，是建立一个盈利的质量标准的定义。

一个框架的概念，财务会计准则委员会的目标是协助投资者的收益作出投资决定，其中包括预测未来的概念，框架不仅指的可靠性（或真实性）财务报表，而且是信息的相关性和预测能力的财务报表。

作者的收入质量定义吸收了来自普拉特的和Penman的定义。

笔者定义收入盈余质量报告能力，以反映公司的真实收益并帮助预测未来的收益。

他们认为，收益稳定，持久性，和可变性缺乏是关键。

盈余质量评估
作者提出一个盈余质量评估，提供了一个独立测量公司报告盈利的质量的方法。

评价质量由一个模型组成，它使用20个影响收益质量标准，报表采用的是“滚动式评价”，在各个时期提出。

评价质量评估是更多的操作模式的全面介绍，考虑到收入和支出项目，以及一次性项目，会计政策变更，收购和终止。

该模型还评估了稳定，或缺乏性，这使未来盈利潜力得到更完整的理解。

这些标准都来自八个讨论模型，包括10项准则重叠两个或更多的模型。

评价质量评估点值分配一个标准的20 到100人，总有一分可能从每1至5。

一个1分表示盈余质量的负面影响，而5分表示非常积极作用的盈余质量。

评价质量评估分数，那么，范围从20到100。

类似于债券评级的评分方法，成绩被分配基于以下规模：85-100积分=甲，69-84点= AB公司53-68点= B时，35-51点= BC和20-34积分= c。

当评价质量评估，需要使用专业判断的标准再分配给每个分值。

评价盈余质量中的应用
为了说明评价质量评估过程的应用，作者选择了两个大型制药公司，默克和惠氏。

作者的每一个独立应用的评价质量是对默克公司和惠氏公司的2003年财务报表开会讨论的结果。

讨论依据每个人的评估，随后，他们达成一项商定的评分。

这个过程类似于订婚队将通过。

每个成员将完成独立评价质量评估，则该组将符合作为一个整体来讨论评估和得出结论。

这个过程允许不同经验水平的，并顾及到每个差异团队成员的观点，在此基础上曝光了各领域的公司。

审计小组的讨论也有帮助，当一成员认同一个项目，另一个可能没有，这也许可以解释在每个人的分数分配上。

评价质量评估是完全基于财务数据报表中提供的。

笔者找到了一本盈利措施的质量水平高的协议，并且两家公司的得分变化不大。

人们以为，甚至更少的变化时，组织一组团队更密切接触，如审计项目，完成了评价质量。

所提供的一致性的评价质量评估模型的使用将提高财务报表和评价质量的用户的舒适度。

进一步发展的需要
盈余品质有显著的发展需要由一个统一的定义和一致的模式来衡量。

本文提供了这样一个定义，定位的盈利质量包括盈利能力的报告，以反映公司的真实收入，以及收入效用的报告预测未来的收益。

作者提出一个盈余质量评估模型是符
合这一定义。

评价质量评估确认的会计准则的许多脆弱性，并考虑到财务报表预期等因素影响，但未来盈利，它们是没有明确透露大小的。

作者提出，审计人员进行公众评价质量评估，并出具报告。

审计师评价质量评估报告将提供更高质量的信息，财务报表使用者和满足美国证券交易委员会提供的数字更大的保障需求，收入约的可靠性。

出处:迈克尔 D ·埃克斯《盈余质量分析的评价指标选择》,注册会计师杂志.2005(11): 199.。