Determinants of Revenue-Reporting Practices for Internet Firms

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 523-562

  Bowen, Robert M ^a   Davis, Angela K ^b   Rajgopal, Shivaram ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346679085     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/9728-4YG8-GC3L-FPFA     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aharony, J., C. Lin, and M. Loeb. 1993. Initial public offerings, accounting choices, and earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 10 (1): 61-81.
2. Avolio, D., E. Gildor, and A. Shleifer. 2001. Technology, information production, and market efficiency, Working paper, Harvard University.
3. Bagnoli, M., S. Kallapur, and S. Watts. 2001. Top line versus bottom line forecasts: A comparison, Working paper, Purdue University.
4. Barth, M. E., and S. Kallapur. 1996. The effects of cross-sectional scale differences on regression results in empirical accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (2): 527-67.
5. Beatty, R. P., and J. Ritter. 1986. Investment banking, reputation and the underpricing of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics 15 (1, 2): 213-32.
6. Bernard, V., and D. Skinner. 1996. What motivates managers' choice of discretionary accruals? Journal of Accounting and Economics 22 (1-3): 313-25.
7. Bonner, S., Z. Palmrose, and S. Young. 1998. Fraud type and auditor litigation: An analysis of SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Accounting Review 73 (4): 503-33.
8. Bowen, R., L. Ducharme, and D. Shores. 1995. Stakeholders' implicit claims and accounting method choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (3): 255-95.
9. Bowen, R., L. Ducharme, and D. Shores. 1999. Economic and industry determinants of accounting method choice. Working paper, University of Washington.
10. Campbell, K., and S. Sefcik. 2002. Virtual sales: Barter and revenue management in Internet firms. Working paper, University of Connecticut and University of Washington.
11. Coffee Jr., J. C. 2001. The acquiescent gatekeeper: Reputational intermediaries, auditor independence and the governance of accounting. Working paper, Columbia Law School and Harvard Law School.
12. Davis, A. 2002. The value relevance of revenue for internet firms: Does reporting grossed-up and barter revenue make a difference? Journal of Accounting Research 40 (2): 445-77.
13. Dechow, P., R. Sloan, and A. Sweeney. 1996. Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (1): 1-36.
14. Demers, E., and B. Lev. 2001. A rude awakening: Internet value drivers in 2000. Review of Accounting Studies 6 (2-3): 331-59.
15. Feroz, E. H., K. Park, and V. Pastena. 1991. The financial and market effects of the SEC's accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Accounting Research 29 (Supplement): 107-41.
16. Fields, T., T. Lys, and L. Vincent. 2001. Empirical research on accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1-3): 255-307.
17. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2000a. EITF Abstract 99-17. Accounting for advertising barter transactions. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
18. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2000b. EITF Abstract 99-19, Reporting revenue gross as a principal versus net as an agent. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
19. Francis, J. 2001. Discussion of empirical research on accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1-3): 309-19.
20. Francis, J., D. Philbrick, and K. Schipper. 1994. Shareholder litigation and corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (2): 137-64.
21. Hand, J. 2000. Profits, losses and the non-linear pricing of Internet stocks. Working paper, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
22. Hayn, C. 1995. The information content of losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (2): 125-53.
23. Heninger, W. G. 2001. The association between auditor litigation and abnormal accruals. Accounting Review 76 (1): 111-26.
24. Hilzenrath, D. 2000. Puffing up performance? Accounting of sales by dot-corns, other companies increasingly troublesome to regulators. Washington Post, March 19, H1.
25. Ignatius, D. 2000. Bubblenomics ... . Washington Post, April 2, B7.
26. Kahn, J. 2000. Presto chango! Sales are huge! Fortune, March 20, 90-6.
27. Kessler, A. 2000. Manager's journal: Creativeaccounting.com. Wall Street Journal, July 24, A26.
28. Lazer, R., B. Lev, and J. Livnat. 2001. Internet traffic and portfolio returns. Financial Analyst Journal 56 (3): 30-40.
29. Levitt, A. 1998. The numbers game. Speech delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York, September 28.
30. Malmquist, D. 1990. Efficient contracting and the choice of accounting method in the oil and gas industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 12 (1-3): 173-205.
31. Oppel, R. 2002. Chief acknowledges 'debate' on global crossing deals. New York Times, March 22.
32. Palmrose, Z., and S. Scholz. 2001. Restated financial statements and auditor litigation. Working paper, University of Southern California and University of Kansas.
33. Pincus, M., and S. Rajgopal. 2002. The interaction between accrual management and hedging: Evidence from oil and gas firms. Accounting Review 77 (1): 121-60.
34. Plummer, E., and D. Mest. 2000. Evidence on management of earnings components. Working paper, Southern Methodist University and Rutgers University.
35. Pregibon, D. 1981. Logistic regression diagnostics. Annals of Statistics 9 (4): 705-24.
36. Rajgopal, S., M. Venkatachalam, and S. Kotha. 2002a. Managerial actions, stock returns and accounting earnings: The case of business-to-business Internet firms. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (2): 529-56.
37. Rajgopal, S., M. Venkatachalam, and S. Kotha. 2002b. The value relevance of network advantages: The case of e-commerce firms. Journal of Accounting Research (forthcoming).
38. Schultz, P., and M. Zaman. 2001. Do individuals closest to Internet firms believe they are overvalued? Journal of Financial Economics 59 (3): 347-81.
39. Schwartz, E., and M. Moon. 2000. Rational pricing of Internet companies. Financial Analyst Journal 56 (3): 62-75.
40. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1999. Staff Accounting Bulletin no. 101, Revenue recognition in financial statements. Washington, DC: SEC.
41. Shivakumar, L. 2000. Do firms mislead investors by overstating earnings before seasoned equity offerings? Journal of Accounting and Economics 29 (3): 339-71.
42. Trueman, B., M. H. F. Wong, and X. Zhang. 2000. The eyeballs have it: Searching for the value in Internet stocks. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (Supplement): 137-62.
43. Tumarkin, R., and R. Whitelaw. 2001. News or noise? Internet postings and stock prices. Financial Analyst Journal 56 (3): 41-51.
44. Veverka, M. 1999. Internet stock mavens beware: The SEC is cracking down on dot-com accounting. Barron's, November 22, 57.
45. Warfield, T., J. Wild, and K. Wild. 1995. Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20 (1): 61-91.
46. Weil, J. 2001. Pro forma figures may stay in reports, but must be explained, panel suggests. Wall Street Journal, April 27, C16.
47. White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48 (4): 817-38.
48. Willoughby, J. 2000. Burning up: Warning: Internet companies are running out of cash -fast. Barron's, March 20, 29.
49. Wysocki, P. 1999. Cheap talk on the web: The determinants of postings on stock message boards. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
50. Yang, C. 2000. Earth to dot-com accountants. Business Week, April 3, 40.