Search results

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

The primary purpose of this study is the development of Zimbabwe's rescue culture. The current framework for rescue operations was shaped by the historical development of laws pertaining to insolvency and liquidation. Socioeconomic pressures in Zimbabwe can be attributed to some of the main factors that led to the need for rescue legislation and restructuring, which in turn fueled the shift from a culture that supported credit to one that supported debtors. The aim of this study is to offer an overview of the key ideas and principles of the corporate rescue programs now implemented in Mauritius and to investigate the ways in which these ideas and principles impacted the newly enacted Zimbabwean Insolvency Act.

This study adopts a comparative legal approach using Zimbabwe and Mauritius as comparative case studies. The fact that both countries are former British colonies and their insolvency legal framework inspired by common law makes them appropriate to be compared. Legislation and case law are used to conduct the comparative study with the aim of Zimbabwe drawing lessons from the Mauritian legal framework on insolvency. Mauritius is a nearly ideal subject for a comparative case study because of its vibrant and fairly successful bankruptcy law framework, as well as its fictional corporate rescue culture. These might provide Zimbabwe with some motivation and guidance.

The legal framework on insolvency in Zimbabwe has been found to be too stringent and does not provide companies with any lifeline. There is arguably a tendency of forcing companies out of business rather than implementing a rescue culture. Selected aspects of the Mauritian legal framework on insolvency can be mapped onto the Zimbabwean system to implement a much-needed rescue culture given its challenging economic context.

This study contributes to comparative legal literature in the field of insolvency. It is among the very few research work that compares the legal structure on insolvency of Zimbabwe and Mauritius in a collaborative endeavor to enhance the insolvency law and its application in Zimbabwe.