Search results

The purpose of this study is to present the evidence of the association between financial statement comparability and corporate financial distress.

This is an empirical study, and this study uses multiple regression analysis to evaluate hypothesis.

The authors find a significant decrease in the probability of financial distress as accounting comparability increases. Findings of this study suggest that distressed firms tend to produce financial statements that compare poorly to those of peer firms; the effectiveness of predicting financial distress with accounting ratios may be conditional on comparability with peers; and financial statement comparability may be predictive of financial distress.

First, this study only used publicly available financial data, which may not be representative of all countries and could differ because of differences in accounting practices. Second, although this study found a connection between accounting comparability and financial distress, it cannot prove a causal relationship, as other factors that were not controlled for may also have an impact. Third, this study used various measures of financial distress, but other measures could lead to different results. Finally, this study did not include all relevant variables, such as industry-specific factors and macroeconomic conditions, which could influence the relationship between accounting comparability and financial distress.

For investors and financial analysts, the results imply that accounting comparability can serve as a useful signal for identifying companies that are more likely to remain financially stable in the long run. Thus, they may prefer to invest in or recommend highly comparable firms over their less comparable counterparts. For auditors, this study underscores the importance of promoting and enforcing accounting standards that improve comparability, as this can help mitigate the risk of financial distress among their clients. Regulators may also consider the implications of the study’s findings when designing policies and guidelines related to financial reporting and disclosure.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study investigating the association between financial statement comparability and corporate financial distress of the US firms. This study uses large, comprehensive and multi-year data. Furthermore, this is the only study that presents the evidence of negative association between comparability and firm financial distress.

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 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.

As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.

To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.

This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.

This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.

By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.

In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.

This paper aims to investigate the relation between audit firms’ switch to limited liability partnership (LLP) from limited liability company (LLC) and client firms’ earnings comparability. If LLP auditors, who have a higher liability exposure than LLC auditors, are more consistent in implementing generally accepted accounting principles and executing firm-wide audit methodologies, client firms’ earnings comparability will increase.

Using data from China, the authors examine whether client firm-pairs of LLP auditors have higher earnings comparability than client firm-pairs of LLC auditors. The authors also perform cross-sectional tests to shed light on the mechanisms through which auditors’ litigation exposure affects client firms’ comparability.

The authors find that firm-pairs in which both firms are audited by LLP auditors exhibit higher earnings comparability than other firm-pairs. This result is stronger when client firms are audited by the same auditor, when client firms are audited by the top 10 auditors and when the auditors are less dependent on the client firms. The authors also document that firm-pairs in which both firms are audited by LLP auditors have lower average analyst earnings forecast error and forecast dispersion.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to examine the relation between auditor’s litigation exposure and client firms’ earnings comparability. It also extends the literature on audit firm organizational form and audit quality.

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 research is to examine the accounting output of the reformed financial accounting system of municipalities in Belgium, particularly in Flanders. For the first time ever in Belgian governments, an accounting reform transferred from business accounting was imposed. The research hypothesizes that the level of material comparability of the accounting output is very poor in spite of the strict accounting regulations. The empirical results indicate that the annual accounts are actually incomparable in many respects and that these problems cannot be explained away by a lack of experience.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the indirect effect of the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) adoption in increasing the foreign investors’ ownership through the improvement of comparability of financial statements.

This study employs listed companies in 18 countries across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia with an observation period from 2003 to 2012. Unlike previous studies, this study uses a continuous variable to measure the level of IFRS adoption which is measured at the country level. This study includes countries that do not fully adopt the IFRS, partially adopt, make some delays in adoption or some modifications to IFRS.

The results show that the level of IFRS adoption has a positive effect on the comparability of financial statements. The level of IFRS adoption indirectly increases the foreign investors’ ownership through the comparability of financial statements. These results are consistent with proponents for IFRS adoption which argue that the adoption improves the comparability of financial statements that in turn attracts greater cross-border investment.

The findings of this study need to be interpreted with caution due to limitations. Although this research provides a detail measurement on the IFRS adoption, this study only looks at three general items of difference in adopting the IFRS. “Differences in text” used in this research has not quantified detail differences for each adopted standards. Therefore, future research can use a more in-depth measurement of the IFRS adoption level that considers differences or exceptions of accounting treatment.

The results suggest that the standards setting bodies’ (IASB) strategy on promoting the IFRS and objectives to develop a standard that leads to increase the financial statement comparability have been achieved. This research shows that the IFRS adoption plays a role in ensuring the financial statement quality in terms of its comparability. It implies that the standard-setting bodies in every country, as one of the responsible institutions regulating the business environment, can be entrusted with a greater role in order to ensure better financial information quality.

This study introduces novel measurement that is more detailed in measuring the IFRS adoption level instead of applying the discrete variable approach (“adopt” and “not adopt”) performed by previous studies (DeFond et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2011; Lee and Fargher, 2010). This study does not only cover some EU countries but also covers some countries in Asia, Africa, and Australia, so it can be better at capturing the variation of the IFRS adoption outside the EU. This broader coverage will show the consistency of the benefits of IFRS adoption. This study is most closely related to that of DeFond et al. (2011). This research extends DeFond’s study with some important differences as follows: it uses output-based and firm-specific measurement of the comparability from DeFranco et al. (2011), which is deemed to be more appropriate because it represents the qualitative characteristics of financial statements from a user’s perspective, i.e., investors, who evaluate historical performance and predict future performance in their investment decisions; it uses a broader scope of institutional investors; and it covers IFRS adoption in countries outside the EU for a longer observation period.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of competitive pressure on financial statements’ comparability (comparability) by analyzing various dimensions of competition.

The authors study the effect of competition on comparability using the comparability measure of De Franco et al. (2011) and various proxies for competition, competition from existing/potential rivals and non-price competition (NPC).

This study documents that competition is positively associated with comparability, and this effect is more (less) pronounced for industry followers (leaders). The authors also document that competition from existing rivals enhances comparability, but competition from potential entrants does not. Moreover, NPC is also a significant determinant of comparability. Furthermore, the competition from existing/potential rivals plays no significant role in the production of comparable financial statements in state-owned enterprises. The results are robust to alternative measures of comparability and methodological approaches.

This study is the first empirical study that documents a new channel (comparability) through which competition affects financial statements. The findings support the argument that competitive pressure acts as a governance mechanism, disciplines management and increases comparability leading to lower information asymmetry (governance view). However, the findings contest the argument that higher competition motivates managers to withhold information (proprietary cost hypothesis). By examining the effect of state ownership, this study might also help to characterize the effects of changes in corporate objectives on managerial decisions related to financial reporting.

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.