The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who Trades on Pro Forma Earnings Information?
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, many companies have emphasized adjusted-GAAP earnings numbers in their quarterly press releases. While managers use different names to describe these nonstandard earnings metrics, the financial press frequently refers to them as “pro forma” earnings. Managers and other advocates of pro forma reporting argue that these disclosures provide a clearer picture of companies' core earnings. On the other hand, regulators, policymakers, and the financial press often allege that managers' pro forma earnings disclosures are opportunistic attempts to mislead investors. Recent evidence suggests that while many pro forma earnings disclosures are altruistically motivated, some may represent managers' attempts to portray overly optimistic financial performance. If this is the case, then less wealthy, less sophisticated, individual investors are arguably the most at risk of being misled. Consequently, this study investigates who trades on pro forma earnings information. Our intraday investigation of transactions around earnings announcements containing pro forma earnings information reveals that less sophisticated investors' announcement-period abnormal trading is significantly positively associated with the magnitude and direction of the earnings surprise based on pro forma earnings. In contrast, we find no association between sophisticated investors' trading and manager-reported pro forma information. Overall, our analyses and numerous robustness tests suggest that the segment of the market that relies on pro forma earnings information is populated predominantly by less sophisticated individual investors. This evidence is particularly relevant to standard-setters and regulators given that Section 401(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and subsequent SEC regulations are specifically designed to protect ordinary investors from misleading pro forma information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
Cited by
Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review
Blankespoor, E., deHaan, E., & Marinovic, I. (2020) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2020.101344 · Cited by 1,076
The Effects of Reporting Complexity on Small and Large Investor Trading
Miller, B. P. (2010) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr.00000001 · Cited by 801
Individual investors and financial disclosure
Lawrence, A. (2013) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.05.001 · Cited by 600
Beyond earnings quality: evaluating the quality of corporate disclosure practices
Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., Loh, W. T., & McVay, S. (2026) · Review of Accounting Studies · doi:10.1007/s11142-026-09971-2 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhattacharya, N., Black, E. L., Christensen, T. E., & Mergenthaler, R. D.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2007-05-01
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 581-619
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W2103669789
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who Trades on Pro Forma Earnings Information? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr.2007.82.3.581
- The paper
- Bhattacharya, N., Black, E. L., Christensen, T. E., & Mergenthaler, R. D. (2007). Who Trades on Pro Forma Earnings Information? The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2007.82.3.581
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.