Page 1 of 11

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 1

Publication Date: January 25, 2022

DOI:10.14738/assrj.91.11663. Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making

Jeffrey E. Jarrett, PhD

Professor Emeritus

University of Rhode Island (COB)

ABSTRACT

The abandonment option under various capital budgeting models are discussed in

this study to illustrate the notion that present value of cash flows is often

improperly estimated in financial models utilizing decision analytics in estimation

theory as it applies in financial accounting. In this study, intellectual property rights

and other intangible assets which are often not considered in the accounting

estimation processes utilized in financial accounting. An investor/analyst often

misestimates cash flow resulting in less-than-optimum capital budgeting decisions.

This is especially a problem when actions to abandon for salvage and other similar

decisions improve when the present value of intangibles and property rights are

included in the decision process. This last statement is the goal of this study as well

as to present well-founded processes to improve abandonment and similar

decisions in capital budgeting decisions. The estimation problem in financial

accounting is included in the analysis to accomplish this goal.

Keywords: abandonment, estimation theory, present value of cash flow, distribution of

earnings, normal fiducial deviate, opportunity loss

INTRODUCTION

Financial researchers such as Deschow (1994; Deschow and Strand, 2004) indicated that

employing accrual-based accounting methods creates the capability of accounting-based

earnings projections to control and continuously improve the measures of firm performance

reflected in analysts’ earnings forecasts. The argument was that cash flow accuracy is expected

to suffer from matching, realization, and other timing problems concerning the timing of the

recognition of costs and revenues. Accuracy of financial earnings predictions was studied by

Brandon and Jarrett (1974), Jarrett (1983, 1992), Jarrett and Khumawala (1987), and Lambert,

Matolcsy, and Wyatt (2015). They compared methods of predicting earnings seeking to learn

how forecast models can be compared and possibly improved to produce more accurate results

as to cash flow. Questions posed included sources of accuracy, but accrual accounting alone was

not considered the most important source of inaccurate results. However, no one established a

theoretical link between sources of inaccuracy and the matching principle and the accuracy of

financial analysts’ forecasts although many studied the problem (Jarrett, 1989, 1990; Clement,

1999; Gu and Wu, 2003; Ramnath, Rock, and Shane, 2008; Grosyberg, Healy, Nohria, and

Serafeim, 2011). Accounting reports containing these forecasts of cash flow and rates of return

are, in addition, subject to fluctuations in the interpretation of timing principles utilized by

accountants. However, Gu and Wang (2005) brought up the possibility of another source of

inaccuracy in the forecast of rates of return, cash flow, and earnings. Beneish, Lee, and Nichols

(2013) created a model that uses financial ratios calculated with accounting data of a specific

Page 2 of 11

521

Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11663

company to check if it is likely that the reported earnings for a firm were manipulated—the

goal being to estimate earnings better in financial reports. Last, Lev and Gu (2016) in their study

produced evidence from large-sample empirical analysis that financial documents continuously

deteriorate in relevance to investors’ decisions. Further, they detail why accounting reporting

is losing relevance in today’s decisions related to capital budgeting and the abandonment

option.

Note that decisions about abandonment and salvage utilize normal capital budgeting methods

to determine whether there is a relation among the various capital budgeting options, financial

leverage, and financial estimation by analysts. Illustrating capital budgeting with the

abandonment option; allows us to implement and illustrate how corporations utilizing capital.

In turn, one learns and understands that budgeting process are dynamic and flexible, involving

the information flow throughout an organization that determines the investment and

abandonment decisions at individual stages. With this in mind, one may examine how an

abandonment option influences the optimal timing of information. In particular, one may

compare timely information, where the manager acquires perfect precontract project

information. We examine how the future revenues from intangible and intellectual assets may

affect the level of financial leverage of a firm when not all is known about the economic value

of assets which have not tangible definitions.

In the absence of the real option, the following trade-off arises: If information is timely, the

investment decision can be based on perfect information. Alternatively, if information about

intangible assets is not considered in the abandonment option, the timing and decision

concerning the abandon option may very well be estimated incorrectly. The incorrect

information is the product of the misreporting of factual events associated with intangible

assets, and the error associated with incorrect analysts’ forecasts turn to the estimation

problem in financial accounting and in turn apply it to the relation of analysts’ forecasts and the

bias in estimating earnings and cash flow present in evaluating capital decisions.

CAPITAL BUDGETING METHODOLOGY

Berger, Ofek, and Swary (1996) established the link among analysts’ forecasts, cash flow, the

expected capital asset pricing model (CAPM) return, and the present value of cash flow, which

includes forecasts of earning rather than the distributable cash flow. In addition, Wong (2009)

examined the relation between the abandonment option’s potential effect on a firm’s decision

analysis and the eventual analytics employed to determine the optimal decision and operating

leverage. Furthermore, McDonald (2003) analyzed abandonment options, divestment options,

expansion options, and growth options previously examined in a survey by Triantis and

Borison (2001). These and many more studies revealed that they use real options to the general

problems associated with capital budgeting.

Analysts’ earnings forecasts enable analysts to estimate the present value of cash flow (PVCF).

According to Berger, Ofek, and Swary (1996), the advantage is that analysts’ forecasts of

earnings do not incorporate the value of the abandonment option. If forecasts of distributable

cash flows, cash flows from non-ongoing concern events would be included in the forecasts.

Thus, earnings may not be the same as cash flows. Hence, we adjust because capital

expenditures are not equivalent to depreciation and the growth in working capital is not

subtracted from earnings. No longer is it required to adjust for capital structure changes in the

Page 3 of 11

522

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 1, January-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

environment that such changes cannot be foreseen. Borrowing again from Berger, Ofek, and

Swary (1996), their equation constructs the present value of capital formation (PVCF) that

evolves from the analyst’s discounted forecasts. Included in the equation is the sum of the

present value of analysts’ predicted going-concern cash flows discounted by analyst forecast of

year t after-interest earnings and expected CAPM (capital asset pricing model return),

consensus forecast of five-year earnings growth, the terminal growth rate of earnings, the

number of years for which earnings are forecast, and a year index. The CAPM adjustment

includes the reduction to the present value of analysts’ earnings. The second adjustment to

PVCF is the working capital adjustment, which is a reduction to the present value of analysts’

earnings forecasts to adjust for growth in working capital. Finally, the expected CAPM return is

defined as

r = rf + βe * [rm – rf], (1)

where rf is the risk-free rate, βe is the firm’s beta or systematic risk (from the CRSP beta file),

and (rm – rf) is the risk premium of the stock market minus the risk-free rate.

In implementing Equation (1), we assume that the relevant investment horizon is short term.

Therefore, a useful solution is to use the one-month Treasury-bm rate as a proxy for the risk- free rate and a risk premium (the arithmetic mean from a long period of time from between the

return on the S&P 500 and the return on Treasury bills).

The problem with the above approach is the variable the analysts’ forecasts of earnings. In part,

this is a solution to the problems noted by Pappas (1977) in response to the work by Brief and

Owen (1968, 1969, 1970, 1977; Barnea and Sadan, 1974; Jarrett, 1983, 1992), who used their

work in developing models to adjust analysts’ earnings forecasts in evaluating the

abandonment option. Studies concerning analysts’ forecasts are well known and include a huge

number. In general, as stated by many in the field of financial accounting, earnings forecasts are

dependent on the principles of financial accounting that produce the data for modeling trends

and seasonality (or modeling components). The accuracy of analysts’ forecasts has a long

history and includes works by Clement (1999), Gu and Wu (2003), Ramnath, Rock, and Shane

(2008), Groysberg, Healy, Nohria, and Serafeim (2011), and Makridakis, Spiliotis, and

Assimakopoulos (2017). The last paper suggested that machine learning models may have

better results than self-prepared models for forecasting. The aforementioned studies focused

on a relation between analysts’ forecasts and the magnitude and value of intangible assets.

Intangible assets were not considered in the forecasting method discussed by the researchers

in their many and detailed studies. The value of intangible assets produces a great source of

error if they are not considered in the forecasting methods utilized by analysts in the

production of cash flow, rates of return and earning per share (EPS) forecasts. When

adjustments for intangible assets are included in the analysts’ forecasts, Gu and Wang (2005, p.

673) stated that “the rise of intangible assets in size and contribution to corporate growth over

the last two decades poses an interesting dilemma for analysts. Most intangible assets are not

recognized in financial statement, and current accounting rules do not require firms to report

separate measures for intangibles.” Intangibles include trademarks, brand names, patents, and

similar properties that have value but are generally not listed in the financial reports of firms.

Many of these items are technology based and are very important in financial decisions such as

in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). They are an intricate part of the growth of firms and

Page 4 of 11

523

Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11663

therefore are shown to be related in the statistical sense to the overall estimates made by

accounting and analysts.

In another study concerning analysts’ forecasts, Matolcsy and Wyatt (2006) found that an

association between EPS forecast, growth rates forecast error, and measures of technological

conditions in the firm’s industry. They found that as the forecast horizon increases, the

technological conditions and current EPS are statistically associated with analysts’ forecasts.

Long horizon creates the conditions for within one to conclude that interactions between

technological conditions and current EPS are associated with analysts’ EPS and growth

forecasts. This conclusion aligns itself with Jung, Shane, and Yang (2012), who suggested that

analysts’ growth forecasts effect efforts to evaluate analysts’ forecasts may produce

optimistically biased long-term forecasts. Because intangible assets that are often technology

based take up more of the balance sheet of many firms, it is likely that analysts’ forecasts may

produce less accurate predictions of earnings, cash flow, and rate of return. The conclusions of

Deschow (1992) become less important. Balance sheets usually have little or no involvement

with the value of intangibles, although there are some practices by accounting that are still used.

Thus, in the remaining portions of this analysis, we propose a method by which one can

estimate earnings such that the value of intangible assets is valued and earnings estimate are

not biased by serious errors of omission such that the capital budgeting model expressed

earlier in equations by Berger, Ofek, and Swary (1996, p. 264) are not unduly biased.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADITIONAL ACCOUNTING

As noted by Brief and Owen (1969, 1970, 1977), Jarrett (1971, 1974, 1983), Roberts and

Roberts (1970), and Barnea and Sadan (1974), the timing of recognition of revenue for

intellectual property rights (IPR) in financial statements of ten are not featured in merger-and- acquisition activity. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) provides for such

activities; however, they are often ignored due to their evasiveness or are not fully

informational in their normally structured rules. Recognizing future performance is a goal of

matching and timing but are unrelated to recognizing cash flow and similar items in the

historical performance of a firm. Nonprofit entities often do not use accrual rules at all because

the goal of these are related to achieving high rates of return. Often IPR for nonprofits would

differ from the same item for profit-maximizing entities because the goal of seeking high rates

of return does not enter the strategic planning process for nonprofits (World Trade

Organization, 2016). The purpose here is to consider intellectual property (IP) as intangible

assets, as a product of intellect that law protects from unauthorized use by those not

responsible for the IPR. Hence, IPR are characterized as the protection of distinguished signs

such as trademarks for goods and services, patents, and other similar items that are under

protection from unauthorized use. This includes art, music, creations by authors including the

authorship of computer software, and similar items such as discoveries, inventions, phrases,

symbols, and design. Obviously, a writer and conductor of music such as Leonard Bernstein and

Daniel Barenboim would have created IP that differ greatly from physicists such as Lise

Meitner, Niels Bohr, or Albert Einstein.

Presently, accounting suggests two methods to determine the value of IPR to produce better

estimates of from accounting analysts’ forecasts. The convention of the “lower of cost or

market” is based on the rule of conservatism in valuing assets to anticipate future losses instead

of future gains. The policy tends to understate rather than overstate the value of net assets and

Page 5 of 11

524

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 1, January-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

could therefore lead to an understatement of income, cash flow, earnings, and rates of return.

The purpose of this study and its conclusive result is to neither understate nor overstate cash

flow so as to produce a rate of return on cash flow that is commensurate with the goal of

producing accurate prediction of cash flow and its rate of return for financial and decision- making purposes. Stated differently, the purpose is not to violate accounting policy but to

ensure the M&A that cash flow is estimated properly. Traditionally, when accounting writes

policy about intangible assets as a residual, by “residual” they mean a buyer is ready to value a

firm in excess of the value of the tangible assets. This value is often referred as “goodwill”

(White, Sandhi, and Fried, 1994), which is an imperfect method. This notion of goodwill is

estimated as a residual value. If the valuation of intangible property is imperfect because it

considers part of the solution of a bargaining process, in this case, the buyer and seller may

have different market power, which greatly affects the residual of the bargaining process and

produces an imperfect or biased estimate of the value of the intangible assets. One may examine

the case of the sale of Superman by struggling comic book artists to a much larger corporate

power who could market the character to comic books, television, and the film industry. The

near-destitute conditions of the original artists who created the intangible product could never

cope with the business and marketing (power) of those who purchased the name Superman.

Thus, goodwill becomes a vague valuation system that justifies the bringing of data analysis and

science into the valuation process.

Accountants often suggest during the M&A process is to simply list the patents, trademarks,

brands, and similar items of IP in the financial reporting of the firm. Following this initiative

and suggestion of the accounting principles board provide little aid concerning the economic

value of IPR and products for a firm during the M&A events. In the final step of the problem, the

evaluation may biases of the reading of the financial reports. Accountants forecast the overall

rate of return for a firm but do not ignore the convention of “conservatism.” Accounting practice

values the IPR for a firm each year for each and every IPR under consideration. The principle of

goodwill is not to be used during M&A activity to account for the value of IPR. IP may induce

greater asset values but it also affects the rate of return on cash flow because the denominator

of the rate of return will change. (To understand the gravity of ignoring or improperly valuing

IPR, see Jarrett, 2016, 2017a, 2017b.) This result, debated previously (Brief and Owen, 1969;

Brief, 1977; Pappas, 1977), indicated that including earnings risks may not fully reflect all risks

in estimating earnings, but at least reflects that part of risk from the variation in earnings.

Furthermore, Helliar, Lonie, Power, and Sinclair (2001) summarized attitudes of managers

toward risk in the following way. The abandonment option may be extremely appointment

when considering the survival of a firm or nonprofit entity. Survival is often the goal of the

abandonment option, indicating that risks that are taken in special situations such as

catastrophes when the survival of whole areas of an industry may be under threat (Shleifer and

Vishny, 1992; Liu and Liu, 2011) may be different from those taken in more usual

environments. An entity in decline may avoid innovative options and concentrate on immediate

short-term options rather than riskier longer-term projects with more difficult goals to be

accomplished. In addition, the choice may rapidly increase the rate up the process decline and

result in managers becoming more risk averse and not employing greater use of intangible

assets and IP.

Page 6 of 11

525

Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11663

ESTIMATION MONETARY VALUES FOR INTANGIBLE AND SIMILAR ASSETS

One illustrates the size of the bias in estimating earnings when the monetary equivalent of

values of intangible assets is not considered by analysts in estimating future earnings. Note that

failure to estimate future earnings affects PVCF, resulting in errors in assessing the

abandonment option. Intangible assets including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and similar

items are usually overlooked and/or not estimated properly in many financial statements.

These statements are considered fundamental information in determining PVCF in

abandonment decisions, M&A, and similar financial decisions analysis and analytics.

To illustrate the case of monetarizing property rights and other intangibles often referred to by

the acronym IPR, let us consider the specific problem of a firm abandoning or selling IPR

through a direct acquisition and the effect on debt as part of its holdings. Obviously, the ratio of

common equity to total capital stock will be changed during the financial operation. In turn, the

effects of financial leverage on total financial risk will also be part of the problem. The rate of

return to common shareholders is related to the measure of financial risk utilized in any

decision of this type. We assume that the firm is motivated to finance the acquisition by leverage

instead of issuing new common share nor a strict loan from a financial institution or similar

institution is the result of an economic optimization policy. Define T as the sum of debt and

common stock. To illustrate simply, preferred share and other financial instruments are valued

at zero to avoid complications that may hinder the explanation. S is the monetary value of

outstand common, and D is the amount of debt. X is the amount of earning in a future time

period. X is a random variable, and E(X) is the mean of the random variable. V(X) is the variance,

and S(X) is the square root or standard deviation. The cost of the debt per dollar is I; the interest

rate. The mean earning per dollar of S is

E(Y) = E(X)/S = E(X)/ (T–D) (1)

Note that Y is also a random variable with mean E(Y). Mean (or expected) earning is defined as

follows:

E (X’) = E(X) – iD for D >0; (2)

Hence, E (X’) = E(X), for D = 0 (2’)

The variance of total earnings is

V (X’) = V(X) for D ≥0 (iD)

and is a constant) (2’’)

The financial decision-optimum to fund the purchase is an example of decision analytics where

the decisions are to substitute debt for common stock or not to substitute debt. Using data

analytical language, for this decision problem the states of nature are defined by

E(X) >ID or E(X) ≤ID (3)

We define the opportunity loss function as an integral approximation the firm’s view toward

choosing a nonoptimal decision. No loss occurs when earnings are greater than the cost of debt

because management will benefit from the strategy of leverage financing.

As an example, consider cash flow to be greater than the cost of debt management, and in turn,

the loss function would change, reflecting the goal of optimum decision analytics. The basic

structure of the acquisition strategy would not change except for the substitution of cash flow

Page 7 of 11

526

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 1, January-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

for earnings. To calculate the opportunity loss function associated with this strategy, we

estimate some probability density function (PDF) that approximates the PDF for future

earnings. Before we consider all PDFs, let the firm focus on the normal distribution or T- distribution having a very large number of degrees of freedom, which approximates the

standard normal distribution. The opportunity loss at breakeven (X b) becomes

X b = E (X’) – Z ((S (X’)) (4)

Z refers to the normal fiducial deviate. S (X’) is the standard deviation. By rearrangement, we

find E(X) = E (X’) – iD. The next step is to determine the size and distribution of the loss function

for the distribution of future earnings, which is all in line with objectives of the timing of the

realization revenues discussed before (Jarrett, 1971, 1992and 2018). In Table 1, we preview

one of three methods to estimate the monetary value of IPR. The E(X) is $4,200, and the S(X)

increases by given amounts ($100). Column 3 contains the cost of debt of $3,200. The Z (the

normal deviate) calculation is accomplished column 4 with column 5 containing the cumulative

normal probability. In turn, the IPR monetary value is simply the normal probability multiplied

by E(X) and is contained in column 6. The $IPR is thus calculated for a variety of circumstances.

Table 1: Estimation of Monetary Value of IPR Changes in standard deviation of earnings (or size

of variation in earnings)

E(X) S(X) Cost of debt Z-Score Cum. Prob. $IPR

4,200 400 3,200 2.50000 0.993790 4,174

4,200 500 3,200 2.00000 0.977250 4,104

4,200 600 3,200 1.66667 0.952210 3,999

4,200 700 3,200 1.42857 0.923436 3,878

4,200 800 3,200 1.25000 0.894350 3,756

4,200 900 3,200 1.11111 0.866740 3,640

4200 1000 3200 1.00000 0.841345 3534

A second example of estimating the monetary value of IPR (Table 2), E(X), column 1 is constant

from row to row; column 2, S(X), remains the same ($600) from row to row; and column 3, the

cost of debt changes from row to row due to the change in the interest rate and other costs

associated with debt. In column 4, the standard normal deviate, Z, decreases in value from row

to row, and in column 5, the cumulative probability from the normal curve decreases from row

to row. The dollar value of the IPR will continually decrease from the top row to the bottom row

in Table 2.

Table 2: The Dollar Value of IPR Changes in Interest Rates and the Cost of Debt

E(X) S(X) Debt cost Z Score Normal

probability

$IPR

2,100 600 500 2.66667 0.996170 2,091.96

2,100 600 1,200 1.50000 0.933193 1,959.70

2,100 600 1,400 1.16667 0.878327 1,844.49

2,100 600 1,600 0.83333 0.797672 1,675.11

2,100 600 1,800 0.50000 0.691462 1,452.07

2,100 600 2,000 0.16667 0.566184 1,188.99

Page 8 of 11

527

Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11663

One last example, Table 3: we alter the example by comparing the monetary value of IPR when

the cost of debt and debt: equity ratio in columns 1 and 2 of Table 3. In turn, both columns 3

and 4 (cost of debt and net cash, respectively) change from row to row. The Z-statistics and

normal probabilities change, and the monetary value of IPR changes from row to row with the

highest in row 1 and descending thereafter.

Table 3: Comparison of the Debt to Equity Ratio) (Equity = $200,000)

Debt D:E ratio Debt cost Cash

inflow

S(X) Z Score Normal

prob.

$IPR

50,000 0.25 2,000 2,300 230 1.304 0.903942 180,788

60,000 0.30 2,400 1,900 190 –2.632 0.004249 850

70,000 0.35 2,800 1,500 150 –8.667 0.000000 0

80,000 0.40 3,200 1,100 110 –19.091 0.000000 0

90,000 0.45 3,600 700 70 –41.429 0.000000 0

100,000 0.50 4,000 300 30 123.333 0.000000 0

Note: $IPR is the Dollar value of IPR

These examples show that estimation theory in financial accounting is a fundamental

ingredient in correcting financial reporting data. Now, financial analysts now have a complete

set of data to work with when making earnings forecasts and other decisions. Our finding does

not dispute that of others.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CONCERNING ESTIMATION THEORY AND METHODS

Estimation and timing of the recognition and matching of costs and revenues is dependent on

the underlying analysis of data that corroborates its use. Although one cannot examine all data

but only samples of data previously analyzed by Berger, Ofek, and Swary (1996). In their study,

they obtained data from the International Brokers Estimate System (IBES) that have forecasts

of earnings and growth in earnings. In Table 4, we provide their descriptive information on the

sample information obtained. The information obtained describes the distribution of PVCF for

three separate forecasting methods. In analyzing these data, one calculates the skewness

coefficient and presents the results in the expanded table. The analytics indicates the symmetry

in the distributions of the PVCF data.

A previous study by Berger, Ofek, and I. Swary(1996 )the distribution of the sample data for

rates of return is probably close to a symmetrical one and, in turn, likely to be distributed

similar to a normal distribution process. If not exactly normally distributed, there are many

ways one can estimate the distribution of the PVCF data, bringing more credibility to the

process. One last point concerning the distribution of PVCF of Berger concerns the kurtosis in

the sample data in Berger’s study. Westtfall (2014) notes, “it’s only an unambiguous

interpretation in terms of the tail extremity; i.e., either existing outliers (for the sample

kurtosis) or propensity to produce outliers (for the kurtosis of a probability distribution).’ The

logic is simple: Kurtosis is the average (or expected value) of the standardized data raised to

the fourth power. Any standardized values that are less than 1 (i.e., data within one standard

deviation of the mean, where the “peak” would be) contribute virtually nothing to kurtosis,

because raising a number that is less than one to the fourth power makes it closer to zero. The

only data values (observed or observable) that contribute to kurtosis in any meaningful way

are those outside the region of the peak, stated differently, the outliers. Therefore, kurtosis

Page 9 of 11

528

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 1, January-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

measures outliers only; it measures nothing about the “peak.” Without the original data, one

cannot measure the exact kurtoses for the data. However, one can observe that the mean of data

and minimum and maximum values do not differ by huge amounts. Hence, the exact likelihood

of long tails in the distribution of data about the mean does not exist. The likelihood is therefore,

if such an observation indicates that at all, the measures of kurtoses would be relatively small

and approach a normal distribution when examining the population from which the sample

was chosen. Hence, the normal approximation when the sample size is large as in the cases

observed indicates the validity of the normal approximation. This also the case if one has

evidence that the data are distributed according to another probability distribution function

and that one could be used in evaluating the value of IPR. Other probability distibutions may be

used when sample data indication we would be more wise to use them. Hence we utilize normal

probabilities when they are most as in this analysis.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Firms entering into decisions in times of financial distress are often confronted with failure and

survival. These decisions concern the abandonment of assets. The problems associated with

valuing intangible assets and IPR are similar to those involved in decisions about M&A. The

firm’s environment may be different in each case, but the problems associated with predicting

cash flow and earnings by analysts still prevail. This study suggests ways of estimating earnings

and PVCF when considering the effects of IPR and other intangible assets in the process. The

proposal studied meets the requirements of the estimation theory in financial account, which

is consistent with accounting conservatism and the goals of financial accounting. Additional

methods exist for estimating the value of intangibles, which include using the distribution of

financial earnings when the normal distribution does not apply. This will be the focus of new

and additional research.

References

Barnea A., and S. Sadan, 1974. On the decomposition of the estimation problem in financial accounting, Journal of

Accounting Research 12, 197–203.

Beneish, M.D., C.M.C. Lee, and D. C. Nichols, 2013. Earning manipulation and expected returns, Financial Analysts

Journal, March/April, 57–82.

Berger, P.G., E. Ofek, and I. Swary, 1996. Investor valuation of the abandonment option, Journal of Financial

Economics 42, 257–287.

Brandon, C., and J.E. Jarrett, 1974. Accuracy of financial forecasts, The Financial Review 9, 29–45.

Brief, R., 1977. A note on the inclusion of earnings risk in measures of return: A reply, Journal of Finance 32,

1367.

Brief, R., and J. Owen, 1968. A least squares allocation model, Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 193–199.

Brief, R., and J. Owen, 1969. A note on earnings risk and the coefficient of variation, Journal of Finance 24, 901–

904.

Brief, R., and J. Owen, 1970. The estimation problem in financial accounting, Journal of Accounting Research 8,

167–177.

Clement, M.B., 1999. Analyst forecast accuracy: Do ability, resources, and portfolio complexity matter? Journal of

Accounting and Economics 27, 285–303.

Deschow, P.M., 1994. Accounting earnings and cash flows as measures of firm performance: The role of

accounting accruals, Journal of Accounting and Economics 18, 3–42.

Page 10 of 11

529

Jarrett, J. E. (2022). The Influence of the Pandemic of Decision Making. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1). 520-530.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11663

Deschow, P.M., and C. M. Schrand, 2004. Earnings quality, Research Foundation Books 3, 1–152.

Gordon, M., and A. Halpern, 1974. Cost of capital for a division of a firm, Journal of Finance 29, 1153–1163.

Groysberg, B., P. Healy, N. Nohria, and G. Serafeim, 2011. What factors drive analyst forecasts? Financial Analysts

Journal 67, 18–29.

Gu, F., and W. Wang, 2005. Intangible assets, information complexity and analysts earnings forecasts, Journal of

Business Finance and Accounting 32, 1673–1702.

Gu, Z., and J.S. Wu, 2003. Earnings skewness and analyst forecast bias, Journal of Accounting and Economics 35, 5–

29.

Hagendorff, J., I. Hernando, M.J. Nieto, and L.D. Wall, 2012. What do premiums paid for bank M&A’s reflect? The

case of the European Union, Journal of Banking & Finance 36, 749–759.

Helliar, C., A. Lonie, D. Power, and D. Sinclair, 2001. Attitudes of UK managers to risk and uncertainty, Balance

Sheet 9, 7–10.

Jarrett, J.E., 1971. The principles of matching and realization as estimation problems, Journal of Accounting

Research 9, 378–382.

Jarrett, J.E., 1974. Bias in adjusting asset values for changes in the price level: An application of estimation theory,

Journal of Accounting Research 12, 63–66.

Jarrett, J.E., 1983. The rate of return from interim financial reports, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting

10, 289–294.

Jarrett, J.E., 1989. Forecasting monthly earnings per share: Time series model, OMEGA: The International Journal

of Management Science 17, 37–44.

Jarrett, J.E., 1990. Forecasting seasonal time series of corporate earnings: A note, Decisions Sciences 21, 888–893.

Jarrett, J.E., 1992. An economical method for correcting forecasting error, American Journal of Business 7, 55–58.

Jarrett, J.E., 2016. The problems of accounting reporting false information and estimation, Intellectual Property

Rights S1, 007.

Jarrett, J.E., 2017a. Intellectual property valuation and accounting, Intellectual Property Rights 5, 181.

Jarrett, J.E., 2017b. Intellectual property and the role of estimation in financial accounting and mergers and

acquisitions, SF Journal of Intellectual Property Right 1, 1–8.

Jarrett, J.E., and S. Khumawala, 1987. A study of forecast error and covariant time series to improve forecasting

for financial decision making, Managerial Finance 13, 20–24.

Jarrett, J.E., 2018. Analysts’ Forecasts, the Abandonment Option and Intellectual Capital, International Journal of

Accounting and Financial Reporting, 8, 4, 1-12, doi:10.5296/ijafr.v8i4.

Jung, B., F. Shane, and Y. Yang, 2012. Do financial analysts’ long-term growth forecasts matter? Evidence from

stock recommendations and career outcomes, Journal of Accounting & Economics 51, 1–2.

Lambert, D., Z. Matolcsy, and A. Wyatt, 2015. Analysts’ earnings forecasts and technological conditions in the

firm’s investment environment, Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 11, 1–46.

Lev, B., and F. Gu, 2016. The End of Accounting and the Path Forward for Investors and Managers, New York,

Wiley.

Liu, P., and C.H. Liu, 2011. The quality of real assets, liquidation value and debt capacity. Working paper, The

Center for Real Estate and Finance.

Makridakis, S., E. Spiliotis, and V. Assimakopoulos, 2017. The accuracy of machine learning (ML) forecasting

methods versus statistical ones: Extending the results of the M#-Competition. Working paper, University of

Nicosia, Institute for the Future, Greece.

Matolcsy, Z., and A. Wyatt, 2006. Capitalized intangibles and financial analysis, Accounting and Finance 46, 457–

479.

Page 11 of 11

530

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 1, January-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Pappas, J.L., 1977. A note on the inclusions of earnings risk in measures of return: A comment, Journal of Finance

32, 1363–1366.

Ramnath, S., S. Rock, and P.B. Shane, 2008. The financial analyst forecasting literature: A taxonomy with

suggestions for further research, International Journal of Forecasting 24, 34–75.

Roberts, C., and E. Roberts, 1970. Exact determination of earnings risk by the coefficient of variation, Journal of

Finance 25, 1161–1165.

Romanna, K., and R.L. Watts, 2012. Evidence on the use of unverifiable estimates in required goodwill

impairment, Review of Accounting Studies 17, 749–780.

Shleifer, A., and R.W. Vishny, 1992. Liquidation values and debt capacity: Market equilibrium approach, Journal of

Finance 47, 1343–1366.

White, G.I., A.C. Sandhi, and D. Fried, 1994. The Analysis and Uses of Financial Statements, 3rd ed., New York, Wiley.

Wong, K.P., 2009. The effects of abandonment options on operating leverage and investment timing,

International Review of Economics & Finance 18, 162–171.

World Trade Organization, 2016. What Are Intellectual Property Rights? Geneva, World Trade Organization.