This study reports on an empirical investigation involving large numbers of firms disclosing primary and fully diluted earnings per share over a 10-year period. The potential usefulness of dual earnings per share disclosures to decision makers is evaluated. Results indicate that primary and fully diluted earnings per share contain essentially the same information and that reporting both amounts is superfluous.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoyerPatricia A.GibsonCharles H.. “How About Earnings Per Share?”The CPA Journal (February 1979): 36–41.
2.
CurtolaAnthony P.VicknairDavid B.WardPinac Suzanne R.. “Earnings Per Share: Alternative Interpretations of the Three Percent Provision of APB 15 in Intermediate Accounting Textbooks.”Issues in Accounting Education (Spring 1988): 17–26.
3.
MautzDavid R.HoganThomas J.. “Earnings Per Share Reporting: Time for an Overhaul?”Accounting Horizons (September 1989): 21–27.
4.
GaumnitzBruce R.ThompsonJoel E.. “Establishing the Common Stock Equivalence of Convertible Bonds.”The Accounting Review (July 1987): 601–622.
5.
SternerJulie A.. “An Empirical Evaluation of SFAS No. 55.”Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn 1983): 623–628.
6.
DudleyLola W.. “Should We Junk the Common Stock Equivalence Test?”The Woman CPA (October 1986): 12–14.
7.
DudleyLola W.. “A Critical Look at EPS.”Journal of Accountancy (August 1985): 102–111.
