Search results

The present study investigated the impact of earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty on accounting comparability in an emerging economy and the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic for the companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

The data about 181 companies during 2014–2021 were examined. In this study, accounting comparability was predicted for the firms' accounting systems and the coefficient estimates were calculated. The present study used the coefficient of variation of sales to capture sales volatility as the primary environmental uncertainty measure.

The results showed that both the earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty have a significant negative effect on accounting comparability, and that COVID-19 significantly increases the negative impact of earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty on accounting comparability. The hypothesis testing based on robust, GLS, GMM, GLM, OLS regressions and t+1 test confirmed these results.

The present study aimed to develop knowledge-providing benefits for companies about the accounting comparability and managing more efficient decisions. The present findings help investors to understand and evaluate the performance of firms more accurately especially in earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty conditions and in the wake of a pandemic crisis such as COVID-19.

This study aims to examine whether accounting comparability between two firms, as measured by De Franco et al. (2011), reflects closeness in the amounts of cash flows and accruals between the firms.

Using 278,452 pair-year observations over the years 2003–2019, the author evaluates the research question using regression models.

Closeness in cash flows and closeness in accruals both increase accounting comparability and the effect of closeness in cash flows is greater. The effect of closeness in earnings is greater than the combined effects of closeness in cash flows and accruals. Earnings quality strengthens, while product closeness weakens, the effects of closeness in earnings and closeness in cash flows.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to empirically test the link between the closeness in earnings components and accounting comparability. This study is also the first to examine cash flows versus accruals in the context of accounting comparability.

Accounting comparability has been the subject of significant interest in empirical financial accounting research. Recent literature, particularly that following De Franco et al.’s (2011) influential study, has focused on utilizing the output of the financial reporting process to measure accounting comparability. In this paper, we conduct an early survey of studies using output-based measures of comparability. We provide two distinct contributions to the literature. First, we describe and comment on four important measurement concepts as well as the studies that introduced them. With this methodological contribution, we aim to facilitate the measurement choice for empirical accounting researchers engaged in comparability research. Second, we classify the sub-streams of literature and related studies. In providing this content-related contribution, we sum up what has already been achieved in output-based accounting comparability research and highlight potential areas for prospective research. As a whole, our study attempts to guide empirical researchers who (plan to) undertake studies on accounting comparability in selecting relevant topics and choosing adequate approaches to measurement.

This paper examines the relationship between tax avoidance and accounting comparability. The authors argue that aggressive tax behavior impairs the comparability of financial statements by altering the accounting function, which maps economic events into accounting data.

The empirical analysis is based on a large sample of United States (US) firms. The authors use raw and industry-adjusted effective tax rates (ETRs) to proxy tax avoidance. The authors use the measure of accounting comparability developed by De Franco et al. (2011), which aims to capture the similarity of the accounting function.

The authors find that firms with more aggressive tax avoidance strategies have substantially lower accounting comparability. The evidence also shows that the negative effect of tax avoidance on accounting comparability is driven by firms with aggressive tax planning strategies beyond the industry norm. Furthermore, using an alternative measure of accounting comparability as a function of pre-tax income, the authors continue to find evidence of the negative effect of tax avoidance behavior. Importantly, this provides evidence that the effect of aggressive tax planning is not limited to the reported tax expense, but affects the comparability of the overall financial reporting system.

The authors identify a new potential cost of tax aggressive activities, being the loss of accounting comparability as driven by tax aggressive activities. The results contribute to the literature on the costs of tax avoidance and on the determinants of accounting comparability.

The present study investigates the impact of accounting comparability on chief executive officer (CEO) incentive plans and the moderating role of board independence for companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

The information about 177 companies in 2014–2021 was examined. In this study, equity-based compensation and cash-based compensation were used as the CEO incentive plans. The equity-based compensation was calculated through the ownership of the CEO shares.

The results suggest that the higher accounting comparability increases not only CEO equity-based compensation, but also cash-based compensation. Board independence also strengthens the relationship between accounting comparability and CEO compensation. Hypothesis testing based on robustness checks confirmed these results.

The paper is pioneering, to the authors' knowledge, in identifying how board independence moderates the impact of accounting comparability on CEO compensation. The findings provide insights into economic consequences to the firm related to accounting comparability and board monitoring. The results have important practical implications for international investors to evaluate accounting comparability, corporate governance mechanisms and CEO incentives.

The introduction of the IFRS in the European Union, and many other countries, has not eliminated the need for research concerning the comparability of financial statements. The IFRS still offers many options. Extensive theoretical literature exists concerning the definition of comparable financial statements and the factors that influence this comparability. This paper aims to investigate this issue.

The paper uses a survey of 426 individuals who use European IFRS financial statements.

This study shows that most of the respondents (67 per cent) interpret comparability as uniformity, that is, that all companies using the same accounting methods. Comparability of financial statements over time and of companies operating within the same industry are considered to be the most important types of comparability. Both types are jeopardised because of continuous changes in IFRS and the lack of industry specific guidance. Only 41 per cent of the respondents believe that all IFRS financial statements are comparable. Not only accounting methods used, but also judgements made by preparers and interpretation differences are viewed as important factors influencing the comparability of financial statements.

As surveys are uncommon in accounting literature, often because of sampling problems, the validity of this research should be further improved by additional surveys or other empirical research approaches.

This study contributes to the research by determining which factors influence the comparability of financial statements according to the auditors, analysts and other users and what their view is on the comparability of financial statements.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate country-level and firm-level determinants of within-country accounting comparability for 16 European Union countries plus the USA in the post-International Financial Reporting Standards adoption period.

The authors use ordinary least squares regression to test the hypotheses with a correction for heteroscedasticity.

The authors find that firms in countries with rules-based accounting, higher quality public auditor work environments, stricter enforcement of accounting standards and more reliance on equity-market financing have higher within-country comparability with each other. At the firm-level, the authors find that firms which are larger, engage in less earnings management, and have lower return-on-asset volatility have higher within-country comparability with each other.

The authors use one measure of accounting comparability. Alternative measures of accounting comparability could test the hypotheses more completely.

The findings of the paper may help the regulators make more efficient policies to establish an efficient financial market within their country.

The paper is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to identify country-level and firm-level determinants of within-country accounting comparability. It contributes to the accounting literature by completing the theory of international accounting comparability from the within-country perspectives, as prior literature focuses on the cross-country perspective of international accounting comparability.

Type of audit opinion is important for all stakeholders. Firm-specific characteristics have a direct impact on the type of audit opinion. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between accounting comparability (as a micro level characteristic), financial reporting quality (as a macro level characteristic) and audit opinions.

This study uses a multivariate regression analysis to tests it hypotheses to a sample of firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange during 2015–2019. To measure accounting comparability, the authors use De Franco et al. (2011) model, and Hutton et al. (2009) model to measure financial reporting quality. The authors use type of audit opinion, and auditor's remarks (explanatory notes) as the measure for audit opinions.

The authors find a negative association between accounting comparability, and the proxies for audit opinion. The authors also find that a negative association between financial reporting quality and audit opinions. These results suggest that higher accounting comparability, and higher financial reporting quality (proxied by earnings quality) increases auditor tendency to issue unmodified audit opinion.

To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first study that empirically examines the association between accounting comparability, financial reporting quality and audit opinion. This study provides empirical support for the theoretical views on the association between financial reporting quality and audit opinion. The results could be of interest of both auditors and managers, especially in emerging capital markets, who seek to improve financial reporting quality.

The rule change for segment reporting in 1998 has arguably made segment reporting more relevant through the adoption of the management approach. Meanwhile, the management approach has resulted in a decrease in the comparability of segment income. We introduce firmspecific measures of changes in relevance and comparability due to the rule change. Our treatment firms experienced an increase in the relevance of segment reporting but a large decrease in the comparability of segment income; our benchmark firms barely experienced any changes in relevance and comparability. We examine earnings forecasts before vs. after the rule change issued by financial analysts—a major user group of segment reporting. Relative to benchmark firms, treatment firms’ analyst forecast error reductions around the segment disclosure event are not significantly different after the rule change than before the rule change, but treatment firms’ forecast dispersion reductions around the segment disclosure event are significantly larger after the rule change than before the rule change. These results suggest that despite the decrease in comparability, the new segment reporting rule has increased the decision usefulness of segment information by decreasing disagreement among analysts.

This paper aims to investigate financial statement comparability in the extractive industry. This paper focuses on the extractive industry because International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) contain limited guidance on the accounting treatment for exploration and evaluation (E&E) costs and IFRS 6 – Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources allowed firms to continue with existing divergent accounting treatment of E&E costs.

The authors use data from Australia, a country that adopted IFRS in 2005 with a large extractive industry. They also compare changes in cross-country comparability around the IFRS adoption date between Australian firms and adopters relative to Australian firms and non-adopters to better isolate changes in comparability that are attributable to the adoption of IFRS from other sources that are not related to the adoption of IFRS. The authors measure comparability consistent with De Franco et al. (2011) where financial statements are comparable when two firms produce similar accounting amounts for similar economic events.

For non-extractive industry firms, the authors find the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms increased with other adopters and that this increase was relatively greater than the increase with non-adopter firms. This evidence is consistent with comparability benefits associated with the adoption of IFRS. However, for extractive industry firms, the authors do not find a significantly greater increase in the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms with adopters relative to the increase with non-adopters, suggesting that the increase is likely not associated with the adoption of IFRS. In additional analysis, they find that following IFRS adoption non-extractive Australian firms have greater within-country comparability relative to extractive Australian firms, while there was no difference in the pre-adoption period.

The evidence suggests that the divergent practices for E&E costs under IFRS 6 and the lack of an accounting standard that deals with matters relating to the extractive industry hinder the comparability of financial statements in this industry.