Objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions
Do firms that manage accruals conservatively (liberally) tend to be good (bad) investments? In their June 2007 paper entitled "Repairing the Accruals Anomaly", Nader Hafzalla, Russell Lundholm and Matt Van Winkle test adjustments to prior studies of the accrual anomaly to determine whether accruals can reliably predict future stock returns without look-ahead bias. One improvement is the use of Joseph Piotroski's financial health score to refine accrual signals. The other improvement is to define accruals as a fraction of earnings rather than as a fraction of total assets. Using a sample of 72,668 firm-years spanning 1988-2004, they find that:
The following chart, taken from the paper, depicts the size-adjusted average annual returns for 25 portfolios sorted by traditionally defined operating accruals (as a percentage of assets) and by Piotroski's financial health score. It shows that the accruals sort is much more meaningful when financial health is high than when it is low. Also, the peak in the back corner of the graph (low accruals and high financial health) is pronounced. Results suggest a hedge strategy that is long (short) the firm with low (high) operating accruals and good (bad) financial health, as quantified above.

The next chart, also from the paper, shows the return by year for a hedge strategy based only on accruals that is long (short) the 10% of stocks with the lowest (highest) accruals, with accruals defined as a fraction of operating earnings rather than as a fraction of total assets. It shows that the strategy consistently generates positive returns (not including transaction costs).

In summary, firm accruals may be a good indicator of future stock returns when combined with a broader measure of firm financial health, or when defined as a fraction of earnings rather than assets.
For other research on fundamental indicators, see Blog Synthesis: Big Ideas for Investing/Trading.