What does this research mean for the field?

The imposition of SFAS No. 2, which required firms to expense R&D costs as incurred, did not cause a significant market reaction, indicating that investors did not expect the accounting change to alter management decisions. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate how the market reacted to the implementation of SFAS No. 2 regarding R&D cost expensing.

March 18, 2026The Accounting Review

The Market Reaction to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 2.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

RVRobert L. VigelandGeorgetown University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

This analysis examines market reactions to SFAS No. 2's requirements on R&D costs, suggesting minimal impact on management decisions.

Key Points

To evaluate how the market reacted to the implementation of SFAS No. 2 regarding R&D cost expensing.
Analyzed market data following the issuance of SFAS No. 2.
Investigated investor expectations of management decisions due to accounting changes.
Conducted tests to assess market reactions to new information.
No significant market reaction was detected after SFAS No. 2 was implemented.
Findings suggest investors did not anticipate changes in management decisions.
Results align with the hypothesis that the accounting change had limited impact on market perceptions.

Cite This Study

Robert L. Vigeland (1981) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ba42dc4e9516ffd37a376f https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-4482639

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

The Market Reaction to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 2.

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

The Market Reaction to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 2.

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider