Search results

Prior studies have found that managers adjust operational activities to tackle climate risk. However, the effects of climate risk on accounting practices are largely ignored in the literature. This paper investigates whether and how climate risk influences managers’ decision-making on the level of accounting conservatism and explains the results based on two competing channels: valuation demand and contracting demand.

Using firm level climate risk measures, we build a modified Basu (1997) model to conduct our econometric tests. In the baseline model, we use earnings before extraordinary items as the dependent variable, referred to as the earnings model. We control for different levels of fixed effect to identify the shocks of climate risk and mitigate potential concerns on endogeneity and bias in the model. A series of robustness tests provide supporting evidence for our baseline results and our explanation.

Using a sample of 35,832 firm-year observations on listed US firms over the period 2002 to 2019, we find that the perception of climate risk drives managers to choose the less conservative accounting policies. We conclude that the results are consistent with the valuation demand explanation but inconsistent with the contracting demand explanation.

The study provides additional evidence on how managers respond to climate risk by adjusting their corporate polices, specifically accounting policies. Our findings contradict the results of prior studies. We explain our results from a unique perspective. Overall, the study provides valuable insights for academics, investors, managers and policymakers.

Surprisingly little is known of the various methods of security analysis used by financial analysts with industry-specific knowledge. Financial analysts’ industry knowledge is a favored and appreciated attribute by fund managers and institutional investors. Understanding analysts’ use of industry-specific valuation models, which are the main value drivers within different industries, will enhance our understanding of important aspects of value creation in these industries. This paper contributes to the broader understanding of how financial analysts in various industries approach valuation, offering insights that can be beneficial to a wide range of stakeholders in the financial market.

This paper systematically reviews existing research to consolidate the current understanding of analysts’ use of valuation models and factors. It aims to demystify what can often be seen as a “black box”, shedding light on the valuation tools employed by financial analysts across diverse industries.

The use of industry-specific valuation models and factors by analysts is a subject of considerable interest to both academics and investors. The predominant model in several industries is P/E, with some exceptions. Notably, EV/EBITDA is favored in the telecom, energy and materials sectors, while the capital goods industry primarily relies on P/CF. In the REITs sector, P/AFFO is the most commonly employed model. In specific sectors like pharmaceuticals, energy and telecom, DCF is utilized. However, theoretical models like RIM and AEG find limited use among analysts.

This is the first paper systematically reviewing the research on analyst’s use of industry-specific stock valuation methods. It serves as a foundation for future research in this field and is likely to be of interest to academics, analysts, fund managers and investors.

This essay focuses on an argument that challenges the notion of market reform as a desirable idea. It examines how market requirements, accounting practices, political intervention and organizational conditions interact and create conflicts in the implementation of market reform. In our case study, we aim to elucidate the detrimental effects of expanding pricing mechanisms into areas typically untouched.

The essay adopts a critical perspective toward the marketization in the public sector organizations based on the authors' previous studies and observations of the reforms in Swedish schools over the last 30 years. The case is conceptualized within Callon’s framework of the sociology of worth.

The paper provides an example of market dynamics introduced without the presence of pricing and qualification mechanisms, resulting in a trial-and-error situation. In this context, we document and problematize a trend toward marketization that has had negative consequences for Swedish schools. In doing so, the paper shows how market requirements, accounting practices, political interventions and organizational conditions interact and create conflicts during the implementation of market reforms. The case shows the emergence of a new economic entity and its underlying rationale, the quantification/pricing mechanism, with a special emphasis on the role of accounting and the repercussions on subjectivities as values shift.

This paper follows up on the New Public Financial Management (NPFM) global warning debate on the emergence of pricing/charging mechanisms in public services. It provides a critical overview of the diffusion and relevance of accounting evaluation processes to sustain continuous reforms, despite claimed criticisms, limitations and (un)intended consequences. The paper also provides some reflections on new avenues for further research and some possible ways out for accounting studies.

Analyzing the impact of integrated reporting (IR) on international firms' value relevance, considering diverse information such as income, cash flows, risks, uncertainties and various capitals.

This paper used a sample of 300 international companies between 2010 and 2019. This paper collected the data from the Thomson Reuters Eikon database. Quantitative methods were used to test the hypotheses. Furthermore, the feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) method was performed to test the hypotheses.

The results suggest that IR and value relevance positively correlate, confirming the hypothesis. Moreover, this paper verified these results by conducting robustness tests on the contribution of the framework and guidelines prepared by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) in 2013.

This study enables users to evaluate company transparency and the relevance of disclosed nonfinancial information, providing valuable insights for report preparers and investors seeking profitable opportunities.

The interest in this research was motivated by the authors’ research field, which is innovative, as few studies have been conducted to explain the relationship between IR and value relevance. Similarly, this paper incorporated into their analysis the importance of the framework created by the IIRC in 2013 in preparing and presenting an integrated report. This paper considered the contribution of this framework to the creation of information content. This design has been overlooked in previous studies. However, this paper mobilized the FGLS method, which has been little used in previous studies.

Our study aims to explore the ownership structure and accounting conservatism in influencing the value relevance that we analyse through the paradigm of open innovation and socio-emotional wealth (SEW). We also extended the test to identify how firm size could affect value relevance.

Through panel data testing, we collected all issuers on the stock exchange for the 2016–2018 period. The total collected observations are 735 observations from various industries.

The results of the study provide empirical evidence that institutional ownership is more pronounce, especially in companies with high asset levels. We also conducted other tests to see it from the perspective of SEW. We divide companies into family and non-family companies. The results of this study indicate that institutional ownership has an effect on increasing value relevance, especially in family companies compared with non-family companies. The results of the study also indicate that accounting conservatism plays a more important role in increasing value relevance in non-family firms compared to family firms.

This study advances in two main ways. First, we use a SEW approach and an open innovation perspective. Second, we conducted tests for family and non-family firms.

This study examines the effect of non-audit fees (NAF) provisions on interest payments classification shifting. In addition, we investigate to what extent the NAF economic bonding and interest payments classification shifting is contingent on internal governance and firm financial well-being.

This study employed probit regression using a sample of UK non-financial firms indexed in FT UK (500) over the period from 2009 to 2017.

We find evidence that the economic bonding of NAF between external auditors and their clients is more likely to encourage managers in UK firms to manipulate operating cash flows through interest payment classification shifting. In addition, and interestingly, our results evince that classification-shifting may be the less costly and soft choice of managers in firms with strong governance and charging higher NAF. Furthermore, we show that financially distressed firms associated with their auditors in purchasing non-audit services are more prone to attempting to manipulate and engage in interest payments classification-shifting. Our result did not provide a significant effect of external auditor tenure on the interest payments classification shifting.

Our findings are subject to the following limitations: First, this study uses a composite index to measure the quality of internal corporate governance. It focuses only on the board of directors, but this index does not reflect other internal governance mechanisms. Second, this study is subject to limited study time due to the implementation of key IFRS standards (IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and IFRS 15 Revenue from Contract with Customers) from 2018–2019.

This study was motivated by the UK’s Financial Reporting Council regulators' pressure on the Big 4 audit firms to move more audit time into main auditing activities, reduce cross-selling to audit clients and separate their audit practices by 2024. Overall, we provide new evidence that directs a close spotlight on the threats of NAF that are potentially useful to regulators, shareholders and investors.

It is motivated by the UK’s Financial Reporting Council regulators' pressure on the Big 4 to move more audit firm time into main auditing activities, reduce cross-selling to audit clients and separate their audit practices by 2024. Overall, we provide new evidence that directs a close spotlight on the threats of NAS that are potentially useful to regulators, shareholders and investors.

This paper examines the ways in which Chinese university middle managers evaluate subordinate performance in response to the Chinese Double First-Class University Plan, a national project that ranks the performance of universities. In exploring compromise arrangements, the hybridised valuing activity of middle managers is found to be shaped by emergent and extant macro-foundations.

The qualitative data from 49 semi-structured interviews at five Chinese public universities were conducted. Drawing on macro-foundational studies and the sociology of worth (SW) theory, the analysis helps to identify socially shared patterns of actions and outcomes.

The findings elucidate the interplay between diverse economic, social, political and institutional values and the compromise-making by middle managers. The authors find that contextual factors restrict Chinese academic middle managers' autonomy, preventing workable compromise. Through the selective adoption of international and local management practices, compromise has evolved into a private differential treaty at the operational level.

A nuanced explanation reveals how the macro-foundations of Chinese society influence middle managers who engage with accounting when facilitating compromise. This study helps outsiders better understand the complex convergence and divergence of performance evaluative practices in Chinese universities against the backdrop of global market-based forces and the moral dimensions of organisational life. The findings have wider implications for the Chinese government in navigating institutional steps and developing supportive policies to enable middle managers to advance productive but also sustainable compromise.

This study aims to contribute to the debate on goodwill accounting by examining the information content of impairment losses recognized in half-yearly reports. Half-yearly reports provide a suitable context to examine the effectiveness of the impairment process. Due to IFRIC 10 requirements, indeed, managers may have incentives to avoid recognizing impairment losses at the interim reporting date.

The study adopts an archival approach. Based on the traditional Ohlson’s model (1995), it explores the information content of half-yearly impairment losses in the European context over the period 2007–2017.

Findings confirm the relevance of half-yearly reports and suggest that half-yearly impairment losses are significantly associated with stock prices. In particular, investors positively value companies that recognized goodwill impairment losses at the interim reporting date.

The study contributes to the academic debate on goodwill and the effectiveness of the impairment procedure. In particular, it provides empirical evidence on the recognition of goodwill write-offs when it is possible to avoid the impairment test in the absence of indications of impairment.

Findings of this study can support the current debate on accounting for goodwill also in the light of the recent proposals of the IASB on the need to improve the effectiveness of the impairment test.

This study provides original empirical evidence on the goodwill impairment test in half-yearly reports, extending previous research that typically examines this issue in annual reports.

This study aims to assess if the voluntary reporting of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), a widely used non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) measure, has effects on information asymmetry and value relevance and how the adjustments to GAAP earnings made to derive it contribute to these effects. This study focuses on firms from two countries with contrasting institutional settings, Canada and France.

Relying on multivariate analyses and using Heckman’s procedure to address the sample self-selection issue, this study first estimates the likelihood of a firm to report adjusted EBITDA. Then, this study examines if adjusted EBITDA, as well as the adjustments made to GAAP earnings to derive adjusted EBITDA (adjustments), affect a firm’s information asymmetry and its value. These adjustments are essentially GAAP-grounded items that are discarded by management to derive non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA. The dependent variables are share price volatility, as a proxy for information asymmetry, alongside market-to-book and stock market return as indicators of value.

In terms of the used sample, results suggest that Canadian firms are much more likely to report adjusted EBITDA than French firms. Chief executive officer (CEO) attributes (CEO power) appears to increase such likelihood. Moreover, for both Canadian and French firms, adjusted EBITDA is associated with reduced stock market volatility, an indication of lower information asymmetry, as well as higher market-to-book and returns, suggesting value relevance. The results also indicate that investors view the adjustments to GAAP earnings made by management to derive adjusted EBITDA as not value relevant (similar to noise). The GAAP-grounded elements that management discard to derive adjusted EBITDA actually increase information asymmetry.

This study adds to prior research on the interface between a CEO attributes and governance and non-GAAP reporting. This study also provides evidence that, despite very different institutional settings, non-GAAP reporting conveys relevant information to capital markets’ participants in both France and Canada. Hence, a country’s institutional setting may have a differential impact on the disclosure choice but not on the resulting value relevance of such disclosure. Finally, this study extends the non-GAAP literature by examining the value relevance of a widely used yet under-researched measure, adjusted EBITDA.

The purpose of this study is to identify the norms that underlie and condition the decisions made by preparers of financial reports.

This interview-based study illustrates how financial report preparers engage in behaviors linked to the perception of recognition and measurement of internally generated intangible assets by important stakeholders. All of the companies included in the study adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards when creating their consolidated financial statements. The participants selected for the study are involved in accounting decisions related to research and development in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38.

The authors identify the normative assumptions underlying the recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles, which are based on concerns of consistency, credibility and reasonableness. The authors find that the normative basis for legitimacy in financial accounting is primarily related to cognitive legitimacy and is not of a moral or pragmatic nature.

The study reveals that recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles in financial accounting relate to legitimacy. The authors identify specific norms that form the basis of this legitimacy, namely, consistency, credibility and reasonableness. These identified norms serve as constraints, mitigating the risk of judgment misuse within the IAS 38 framework for earnings management.