Rep Present GAAP and Adjusted EPS HITs

[BryanB]

This thread is for discussing the HITs in "Transcribe Earnings Per Share Data Reported in Tables"

Here are answers to a few general questions:

What do I need to do to receive the qualification?
I have set up two different qualification tests. To receive the qualification test, you must correctly input 9/10 HITs on either one of the qualification tests.

I have 10/10 HITs accepted from the qualification test. Why don't I have the qualification yet?
I've set it up to automatically accept the HITs but I still have to review them for accuracy to determine how many you input correctly. I try to do this at least once a day (except Sundays).

How do I know my score on the qualification test?
If you input at least 6 of 10 correctly, you will receive a bonus and that email will tell you how many you input correctly. If you didn't qualify and want feedback before attempting the second qualification test, contact me and I'll let you know what you missed. If you don't hear from me in more than a day or two, this means you probably got less than 6 right on the qualification test. If you're not sure, contact me and I'll let you know.

I skipped a HIT and could only complete 9 of the qualification HITs. MTurk won't let me submit the HIT(s) I skipped. What should I do?
I only review the accuracy for those who have completed all 10 HITs. You can contact me and I will let you respond via email for the HITs you skipped. Or you can simply try the other qualification test.

I'm not sure about what is the GAAP EPS or Adjusted EPS in a specific table. Help me!
There is some explanation in the instructions that will expand if you click on the blue box within the HIT. Additionally there is the help website with annotated examples.
Note: There are some tables where both of these resources aren't enough. In this case, either contact me or skip the table.

What are these tables and what are these numbers? What is this data for?
These tables come from earnings announcement press releases where companies announce what their earnings were in a specific year or quarter. The GAAP EPS is the earnings per share according to accounting rules, which companies are required to report. Some companies choose to make their own adjustments to this "by the rules" earnings per share number to give another number, which I've labeled Adjusted EPS. Companies use all sorts of different names for these numbers which is why I'm using MTurk to help identify them. This data is for my dissertation.

How many tables do you have?
I have about 18,000 tables, each of which will be input by two workers. So there will be roughly 36,000 HITs total. I will review the HITs where there are discrepancies between the two workers and will try to post general feedback if I notice trends of common mistakes.

 

[BryanB]

In reviewing the (somewhat) recently submitted HITs, these have been the most common mistakes in order of frequency:

(1) ENTERING QUARTERLY DATA
Please look carefully at the dates and ignore any data from quarters. Some tables have only quarterly data, some tables have only annual data and some have both. Sometimes the annual data is on the left, sometimes it's on the right. Sometimes it's at the top of the table, sometimes it's at the bottom. Some people are entering both the quarterly and annual data. I only want annual data. Ignore the quarterly data.

(2) INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS
If the table has the following:

(a) Income from Continuing Operations per share
(b) Income from Discontinued Operations per share
(c) Net Income per share [the sum of (a) and (b)]​

Input (c) Net Income per share as GAAP EPS and ignore the other two - Income from Continuing Operations is NOT an Adjusted EPS value.

Example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/941138-R20080229-C20080228-F81-12.htm
This table DOES NOT have Adjusted EPS. It only has GAAP EPS (1.57 in 2007 and 1.80 in 2006).

Note: Income from Continuing Operations could be the GAAP EPS value if GAAP Net Income per share is not provided, as is the case in this table:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1192305-R20080212-C20080212-F35-5.htm

(3) OPERATING INCOME
'Operating Earnings,' 'Operating Income', 'Income from Operations' are ADJUSTED EPS labels. I realize this can be confusing since it is very similar to 'Income from Continuing Operations'.A help for identifying this is there will typically be the GAAP EPS number and some adjustment to help you see that this is an Adjusted EPS value.

Example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/701347-R20060124-C20060124-F48-9.htm
In this table, GAAP EPS is 2.38 for 2005 and 1.87 for 2004. Adjusted EPS is 2.49 in 2005 and 2.18 in 2004.

(4) BASIC EPS
If only basic EPS is provided, input basic EPS. If BASIC and DILUTED EPS are provided, input DILUTED.

(5) MULTIPLE ADJUSTED EPS VALUES
If the table has more than one Adjusted EPS value, input the one with more items excluded.

Example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1065088-R20110119-C20110119-F36-39.htm
The table has Non-GAAP EPS and Non-GAAP EPS Excluding Skype. Input the value that has more adjustments (in this case the Non-GAAP EPS Excluding Skype). So GAAP EPS is 1.36 in 2010 and 1.83 in 2009 (notice years) while Adjusted EPS is 1.73 in 2010 and 1.47 in 2009.

(6) EARLY JANUARY
If the fiscal year ends in the first few days of January, treat it as if the year had ended December 31 of the prior year.

Example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/920321-R20090317-C20090316-F64-5.htm
Treat this table as if the columns were 2008 and 2007 so GAAP EPS is -5.49 in 2008 and 0.44 in 2007 while Adjusted EPS is 1.63 in 2008 and 1.75 in 2007.

If you're confused about any of these, please ask and I'll try to clarify.

 

[humbleturker]

Hello there B @BryanB . I did a test run of about 15 of your HITs last night (I got the qualification during the second run) and I keep running across the earnings themselves as well as earnings 'pro forma.' What do I do in this instance?

 

[BryanB]

"Pro forma" is a tricky one. Generally, it is an Adjusted EPS value, like it is in this table:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1509432-R20120213-C20120213-F98-19.htm
In this table, there is no GAAP EPS and Adjusted EPS is 0.60 in 2011 and 0.36 in 2010.

However, if the company has gone through a merger or had some other significant change, they will present the data from before the merger as if the merger had already happened and label that as "pro forma".
Here is an example of this: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1168696-R20040210-C20040210-F58-1.htm
This table is an example from a company that went through a merger in 2003. The Jan. 1, 2004 column is their results after the merger. The "pro forma" 2002 column is the combined results of both companies from 2002 as if they had already merged. The "historical" 2002 column is the results of the one company, as reported the beginning of 2003 before the merger happened.
For this table, GAAP EPS is 1.30 for 2003 and 0.79 for 2002, while Adjusted EPS is 1.34 for 2003 and 0.89 for 2002. If the "historical" column isn't given, you should input the "pro forma" column.

Here's another example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1091667-R20080227-C20071231-F03-17.htm
Both 2007 and 2006 columns are labeled "Pro forma", yet at the bottom of the table it states "Pro forma results reflect certain sales and acquisitions of cable systems in 2006 and 2007 as if they occurred as of January 1, 2006." So the earnings per share presented in this table are really adjusted, they are the GAAP EPS as if the acquisitions had already taken place. Thus, the loss per share of -4.20 in 2007 and -4.24 in 2006 should be input as GAAP EPS.

I realize this is pretty tricky, but hopefully there aren't too many that have the merger/acquisition problem. Odds are that with those, there won't be agreement from the two workers and I'll have to check them myself anyway.

Hopefully that answer makes sense.

 

[humbleturker]

"Pro forma" is a tricky one. Generally, it is an Adjusted EPS value, like it is in this table:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1509432-R20120213-C20120213-F98-19.htm
In this table, there is no GAAP EPS and Adjusted EPS is 0.60 in 2011 and 0.36 in 2010.

However, if the company has gone through a merger or had some other significant change, they will present the data from before the merger as if the merger had already happened and label that as "pro forma".
Here is an example of this: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1168696-R20040210-C20040210-F58-1.htm
This table is an example from a company that went through a merger in 2003. The Jan. 1, 2004 column is their results after the merger. The "pro forma" 2002 column is the combined results of both companies from 2002 as if they had already merged. The "historical" 2002 column is the results of the one company, as reported the beginning of 2003 before the merger happened.
For this table, GAAP EPS is 1.30 for 2003 and 0.79 for 2002, while Adjusted EPS is 1.34 for 2003 and 0.89 for 2002. If the "historical" column isn't given, you should input the "pro forma" column.

Here's another example: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/bryans-data/1091667-R20080227-C20071231-F03-17.htm
Both 2007 and 2006 columns are labeled "Pro forma", yet at the bottom of the table it states "Pro forma results reflect certain sales and acquisitions of cable systems in 2006 and 2007 as if they occurred as of January 1, 2006." So the earnings per share presented in this table are really adjusted, they are the GAAP EPS as if the acquisitions had already taken place. Thus, the loss per share of -4.20 in 2007 and -4.24 in 2006 should be input as GAAP EPS.

I realize this is pretty tricky, but hopefully there aren't too many that have the merger/acquisition problem. Odds are that with those, there won't be agreement from the two workers and I'll have to check them myself anyway.

Hopefully that answer makes sense.

Makes perfect sense. Hopefully there will be another batch soon.

 

[BryanB]

@humbleturker Are there not any HITs available right now? On my end I show roughly 1,000 HITs left to do (which would show up as roughly 500 to any one worker).

 

[humbleturker]

@humbleturker Are there not any HITs available right now? On my end I show roughly 1,000 HITs left to do (which would show up as roughly 500 to any one worker).

Actually, you just reminded me that they were up. Sorry, been a little scatterbrained.
How would you like workers to usually work on your HITs? Do you like them done in bulk or would you prefer them to test the waters with about 20-40 and get in touch with you before they go any further? I did 15 last night and had been meaning to email you to spot check my work if that was alright.

 

[BryanB]

I hope that they have a pretty good idea after doing the qualification test. I tried to set those up to have lots of different types of issues so they get a pretty good idea of what it entails. Up to this point, I've reviewed a batch once it's completed while the next batch is up and available, so there is somewhat of a delay in providing the feedback. I think that has worked okay so far, but if an individual worker is concerned about their accuracy, they can contact me and I'll check their accuracy for them.

 

[humbleturker]

Fair point. I think just the general hiccup (although no fault of your own) was the sheer girth of the instructions and the examples. I appreciate it because it covers all of the bases by and large, but of course, in cases like 'pro forma' and most other cases in the world, there are a few exceptions. It definitely took me a good while to do the qual HITs, and after I got 7 the first time I gathered that feedback and got a 9 on the second set of quals. I'm still learning, but I am getting more comfortable of where to look and you sound like a really fair and responsive requester so I know my questions will be answered or at least considered. Thanks for everything so far.

 

[BryanB]

Table doesn't have dates at the top. Just a bunch of columns and I'm not sure what they are.
Make a comment in the comment box that you're not sure about the columns then input your best guess. If there are five columns and four of the sum to equal the fifth, the fifth is probably the annual data. Just make sure you leave that comment so I can check those specific tables more closely.

 

[chrisy]

Sometimes companies give actual results for one year and adjusted/pro-forma results for another. For example is Walmart's 2011 report* has normal results and adjusted for 2010 (due to an accounting change). Usually I put each in the intended field but that means the two values aren't comparable after all – probably not what was expected since the company itself had put them side by side presumably so we can compare both.

*Link to the press release at sec.gov: /Archives/edgar/data/104169/000119312511041255/dex991.htm

 

[BryanB]

This is somewhat similar to the pro forma I addressed above. However, in this case, rather than a merger/acquisition impacting the comparability of two consecutive years, a change in accounting rules impacts their comparability. In this case, Walmart (or any other company) adjusts the prior year's results to reflect the new accounting rules.

Here's links to Walmart's
2010 earnings announcement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104169/000119312510033699/dex991.htm
2011 earnings announcement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104169/000119312511041255/dex991.htm

You can see in the 2010 earnings announcement that the diluted EPS is 3.70 for 2010. However, the 2011 earnings announcement has the (adjusted) 2010 diluted EPS at 3.71. The 2010 earnings announcement had both 2010 and 2009 results presented under the same accounting rules and the 2011 earnings announcement had both 2011 and 2010 presented according to the same accounting rules (which required adjusting the 2010 results).

So, this makes the numbers on the 2011 earnings announcement comparable to each other but makes historical comparisons more difficult.

As to how this impacts what data is input for these HITs, I would input the following from those earnings annoucements:

2010: 2010 2009
GAAP EPS 3.70 3.39
Adjusted EPS 3.66 3.42
(Technically, I've split up the tables from these press releases, so you would only be given one table per HIT, so the HIT would either have the GAAP EPS or the Adjusted EPS with a GAAP EPS from continuing operations of 3.73 and 3.35)

2011: 2011 2010
GAAP EPS 4.47 3.71
Adjusted EPS 4.07 3.67
(Once again, you would only be given one table per HIT, so the HIT would either have the GAAP EPS or the Adjusted EPS with a GAAP EPS from continuing operations of 4.18 and 3.73)

Now, you can see that the numbers for 2010 aren't the same, and this is part of the reason that I'm asking for all the years in the data that's submitted. This way, I can see the changes and determine which one is best for use in my research.

Thanks for the great question C @chrisy

 

[mTurk8705]

I just now completed the first qualification HITs. I feel pretty good about them. Now the waiting begins.

 

[mTurk8705]

Bryan, this is in reference to Hit ID 3PUOXASB5622VF9PM40ANMP7TK29Z6. which I'll submit in a minute. It contains Class A and Class L stock EPS, with drastic differences in the numbers. I used the Class A as more representative of the actual earnings.

 

[BryanB]

If there are multiple classes of stock, go ahead and input Class A, @mTurk8705. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[YSBharathi]

Hiii BryanB

Now-a-days, No updates of hits from you. Myself,looking to work on your hits. When can we expect more gaap-and-adjusted-eps hits from your. Waiting for response to this post and also for hits in mturk...

Thanks and Regards.

 

[BryanB]

We have gotten through the 18,000 tables (36,000 HITs), so there are no more tables to be posted for the time being. There may be future work (depending on the feedback I get from my dissertation committee), but for the time being, the work has been finished.

Thank you to all of the workers who helped with this data. You don't know how much it means to me.