<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Pronk, M.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/14195/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Financial Accounting, te praktisch voor theorie en te theoretisch voor de praktijk? (Inaugural Lecture)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37375/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-06-29T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Is Financial Accounting too practical for research? I was recently asked
this question during an interview, and it surprised me. Why would it be too
practical for research? Can we only conduct research on topics that are not
related to practice? Or is it not clear what Financial Accounting is really
about, and that it is more than bookkeeping? Using examples of recent
research, I show why Financial Accounting is certainly not too practical for
theory.

The question whether Financial Accounting research is too theoretical
for practice is a more challenging question. Can we do quality research
within the field of financial reporting and is this research relevant to
business? Does our research have any societal relevance in the current
dynamic environment? I conclude that Financial Accounting research is
certainly relevant, but that the accounting professional active in the
business community only benefits to a very limited extent. In addition, I
discuss two initiatives, namely the Ernst &amp; Young Academic Network and the
Erasmus Marketing &amp; Accounting Research Center that will prevent us from
conducting research that is too theoretical for practice.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>What Makes Conference Calls Useful? The Information Content of Managers' Presentations and Analysts' Discussion Sessions (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25721/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Conference calls held in conjunction with an earnings release have become increasingly common in recent years, yet there is little evidence regarding the reasons that these calls are incrementally informative over the accompanying press release. Using a sample of more than 10,000 conference-call transcripts, we examine the information content of both segments of the call-the presentation and the discussion segment. We find that both segments have incremental information content over the accompanying press release. However, discussion periods are relatively more informative than presentation periods, and this greater information content is positively associated with analyst following. We also find that managers provide increased disclosures during the presentation segment when firm performance is poor, but relatively more information is released during discussion periods in these circumstances. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that active analyst involvement in conference calls increases the information content of the calls, particularly when firm performance is poor.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Does Silence Speak? An Empirical Analysis of Disclosure Choices During Conference Calls (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/19221/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-06-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In this paper, we exploit the open nature of conference calls to explore whether managers withhold information from the investing public. Our evidence suggests that managers regularly leave participants on the conference call in the dark by not answering their questions. We find that the best predictors of such an event are firm size, a CEO's stock price–based incentives, company age, firm performance, litigation risk, and whether analysts are actively involved during the call's Q&amp;A section. Finally, we document strong support for the assumption maintained in the literature that investors interpret silence negatively. That is, investors seem to interpret no news as bad news.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>