In the intricate world of corporate finance, the portrayal of company earnings often straddles the line between regulatory compliance and strategic presentation. A recent study by John McInnis, an esteemed accounting professor at Texas McCombs, delves into this nuanced landscape, uncovering how investors respond to a common yet controversial corporate practice: the simultaneous reporting of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) earnings alongside non-GAAP earnings. The research sheds light on whether investors are swayed by these financial presentations, particularly when non-GAAP figures exclude recurring expenses such as stock-based compensation (SBC).
GAAP forms the bedrock of financial reporting frameworks for public companies in the United States, mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to ensure transparency and comparability. These standards compel companies to report a full spectrum of expenses, including often substantial and recurring costs like SBC and amortization of intangible assets. Conversely, non-GAAP earnings, which companies frequently disseminate through press releases and earnings calls, selectively omit certain expenses to provide an alternative snapshot of profitability. This dual-reporting approach, while legal if properly reconciled, raises questions about how investors interpret these divergent earnings narratives.
The prevalence of non-GAAP reporting is striking, with a 2024 report identifying that approximately 80% of Dow Jones Industrial Average companies present non-GAAP earnings figures. On average, these figures are about 31% higher than their GAAP counterparts, suggesting a significant inflation of apparent profits. This discrepancy is primarily driven by the exclusion of expenses deemed “non-recurring” or non-core, although the categorization of such expenses is itself subject to debate. For example, restructuring charges are arguably one-time events, whereas SBC and amortization of intangible assets tend to be ongoing and integral to company operations.
The core intent behind excluding certain expenses from non-GAAP metrics is to highlight the “underlying” profitability of a firm by filtering out anomalies that may not reflect its ongoing performance. John McInnis articulates this viewpoint, emphasizing that many companies use non-GAAP reporting to reassure investors that a low net income is due to temporary charges rather than fundamental business weaknesses. Most of these non-GAAP reporting instances, he suggests, are informative rather than deliberately deceptive, aiming to provide a clearer picture of economic reality beyond the accounting noise.
Nevertheless, the controversy intensifies around expenses like SBC, which often constitute some of the largest deductions from GAAP income in non-GAAP presentations. For instance, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, reported about $23 billion in SBC in 2024 alone. Despite GAAP’s requirement to treat SBC as an expense dating back two decades, many companies exclude these costs from non-GAAP earnings, significantly inflating their profitability profiles. This raises the critical question of whether investors accommodate or disregard such exclusions when making investment decisions.
To scrutinize investor behavior, McInnis, in conjunction with Laura Griffin of the University of Colorado Boulder, executed a comprehensive empirical study analyzing more than 70,000 quarterly earnings announcements from U.S. public firms spanning 2003 to 2021. Utilizing sophisticated automated text analysis methods, they identified instances where recurring expenses like SBC were omitted from non-GAAP earnings disclosures. The subsequent market reactions were meticulously examined to discern how such reporting impacted stock prices.
The findings are revealing. Firms reporting unexpected increases in SBC experienced a tangible adverse effect in their short-term stock returns, with declines ranging from one to two percentage points. Notably, this negative market response was consistent regardless of whether SBC was excluded from non-GAAP figures. This implies that investors are not entirely duped by the sanitized earnings presentations; instead, they actively incorporate the economic reality of these recurring costs into their valuation models.
Further supporting these conclusions, similar patterns emerged regarding other frequent non-GAAP exclusions, notably the amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions. Such expenses, despite their recurring nature, are often bypassed in non-GAAP disclosures. However, the market penalizes companies that reveal higher-than-expected charges in these categories, suggesting investor vigilance in interpreting adjusted earnings reports.
McInnis interprets these outcomes as a testament to the sophistication and resilience of capital markets. Investors appear to possess the analytical acumen to detect and adjust for the exclusion of economically meaningful expenses, contradicting the popular narrative that non-GAAP reporting systematically misleads the market. Instead, the financial ecosystem seems to integrate these adjustments, maintaining efficient pricing even amid complex disclosure strategies.
This research also bears significant implications for standard-setting bodies like the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and regulatory entities such as the SEC. Contrary to calls for tightening rules around non-GAAP reporting, the evidence suggests that the current regime provides sufficient transparency for informed investor decision-making. McInnis posits that the findings should reassure policymakers that the balance between prescriptive standards and managerial discretion is functioning effectively.
The irony of this dynamic lies in the widespread belief on Wall Street that excluding recurring expenses like SBC from earnings reports can boost stock valuations. According to McInnis, this belief is more myth than reality. The market’s pricing mechanisms, driven by investor due diligence and analytical rigor, deflate any artificial premiums that might arise from selective financial disclosures.
While the debate over the appropriateness of non-GAAP metrics persists, McInnis’ work highlights the importance of investor education and transparency. It underscores the imperative for companies to maintain balanced disclosures, combining adherence to GAAP with contextual explanations to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of earnings quality and sustainability across reporting periods.
In sum, the study illuminates how investors navigate the increasingly complex terrain of corporate disclosures. Through rigorous empirical investigation, it reveals that investor rationality prevails even when companies engage in selective earnings presentation. This contributes to a broader understanding of market behavior and reinforces confidence in the current accounting and regulatory frameworks as engines of financial transparency and efficiency.
Subject of Research: Investor reaction to the exclusion of recurring expenses in non-GAAP earnings reports
Article Title: Gone but not forgotten: Investor reaction to “excluded” recurring expenses
News Publication Date: 1-Aug-2025
Web References:
- Study published in Journal of Accounting and Economics
- 2024 Dow Jones non-GAAP earnings report
- Alphabet stock-based compensation data
References:
- McInnis, J., & Griffin, L. (2025). Gone but not forgotten: Investor reaction to “excluded” recurring expenses. Journal of Accounting and Economics.
Keywords: Corporations, Business, Economics, Public finance
