Discussion of An Empirical Evaluation of Possible Explanations for the Differing Treatment of Apparently Similar Unusual Events

Abstract

One of the major reasons for undertaking empirical is influence policy. Cumming's paper falls under that category only since it is obvious that advancing methodology cannot be the reason (see the Drebin critique). Further, the subject matter is so narrowly construed that a more general advance in the discipline cannot be considered a major objective. So, it is important look at the policy implications of this paper. The attempts explain .. . differing treatment of apparently similar unusual events and to assess the criteria in APB Opinion No. 9... as ... how broadly or narrowly accounting principles (or standards) need be construed achieve corporate financial reporting which is essentially free from managerial bias... 'results are then interpreted draw conclusions and recommendations from this research (p. 61). Given the title and the quoted objective, it is difficult draw any other conclusion than that the rationale for the is an attempt influence policy. In the interrelationship between academia and practice, this kind of empirical is greatly needed. In formulating practice policy the profession (through the Financial Accounting Standards Board on the Accounting Principles Board) needs and data so the subject is certainly apropos. Unfortunately, this entire effort serves point out the extreme difficulty of aimed please the two diverse groups. Drebin devotes his critique largely the academic areas, while my critique will speak professional practice.