Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate how changes in the firm's information disclosure practices impact the way investors process macroeconomic news. Specifically, the authors examine the role of derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure, as required by SFAS 133, in shaping invertors response to good and bad interest rate news. In addition, the authors examine whether the effect of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news varies between firms with higher and lower earnings volatility.

This study uses data on all US public firms over the period from 1990 to 2019. The authors mainly apply multivariate regression and a difference-in-difference approach to test their hypotheses.

The results show a significant decrease in the asymmetry of responses to good and bad interest rate news for users of interest rate derivatives following the adoption of SFAS 133. However, in contrast to this finding, the authors also find that the adoption of SFAS 133 has no impact on the asymmetry of responses to good and bad interest rate news for nonusers of interest rate derivatives. Consistent with the ambiguity theory, the finding suggests that SFAS 133 indeed decreases investors’ uncertainty (ambiguity) about the cash flow implications of changes in the interest rate. The authors also find that the decrease in the asymmetry of response to good and bad interest rate news after the adoption of SFAS 133 is greater for users of interest rate derivatives with higher than lower earnings volatility. This implies that derivatives and hedging activities disclosure, as required by SFAS 133, are more important for firms with higher than lower earnings volatility. The finding is consistent with the idea that investors demand more accounting information when underlying earnings volatility is higher. In a set of additional analyses, the authors find that the effect of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news varies depending on the level of analyst coverage and interest rate exposure. Specifically, the authors find that the decrease in the asymmetry of response to good and bad interest rate news after the adoption of SFAS 133 is greater for users of interest rate derivatives with higher interest rate exposure and lower analyst coverage.

The findings of this study help market participants including regulators and standard setters to understand the impact of mandatory disclosure practices on investors' reaction to macroeconomic news. Moreover, the findings of the study help managers to understand the influence firm-specific characteristics (e.g. earnings volatility, analyst coverage and interest rates exposure) on the effectiveness of mandatory derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to explore how firm-specific information environment affects the way investors process macroeconomic news. This study contributes to the literature by providing the empirical evidence that derivatives instruments and hedging activities, as required by SFAS 133, affect investors' response to good and bad interest rate news. In doing so, the results provide insights about how firm-specific information environment affects the way investors process macroeconomic news. This study shows that the cross-sectional variation in earnings volatility, analysts’ coverage and interest rate exposure affects the impact of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news. The findings are not only the notable addition to the existing literature on the topic but also can aid to market participants including policy makers, regulators, standard setters and managers to understand the influence of firm-specific characteristics on the effectiveness of mandatory derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure. Finally, the findings contribute to the general debate about the effectiveness of SFAS 133 by showing that the adoption of SFAS 133 indeed decreases information ambiguity.

The paper seeks to analyze the impact of differences between the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (US GAAP) in the economic‐financial indicators of English companies.

The research is characterized as descriptive‐quantitative, using regression and correlation analysis. The study was developed on 37 English companies that negotiate American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Documental research consisted of accounting statements (AS) from 2005 sent to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and to the NYSE.

The research shows percentage differences in the economic‐financial indicators of English companies, calculated based on AS sent to the LSE and the NYSE that suggest divergences between the IFRS and the US GAAP. However, analysis of regression and correlation indicate significant correlation between the differences of these indicators. Thus, it was concluded that the economic‐financial indicators are not affected in a significant way by the divergences in the accounting standards considered.

As limitations, the economic‐financial indicators chosen can be pointed out. Therefore, in the individual analysis of each indicator and of each company there are greater or lesser differences that are dependent on the existence of the elements that possess difference in the applicable norms and their sums.

The focus of this study is the information asymmetry that results from the differences between accounting standards that are applied. It is intended to advance research with a study of the impact provoked in the economic‐financial indicators from a sample of companies that release AS in IFRS and US GAAP.

Spectacular bankruptcies of the Orange County Investment Pool in December 1994 and Barings Bank in February 1995 mounted a pressure on the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to issue Statement No. 133, Accounting for Derivatives Instruments and Hedging Activities (FAS 133). Although measuring derivatives at fair value is a major improvement in accounting for derivatives, such type of accounting falls short of quantifying and reporting the risk of losses associated with derivative instruments. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative approach to market valuation by integrating quantitative market risk estimation into the valuation method. The paper will use the Barings Bank experience to demonstrate how FAS no. 133 disclosure falls short of disclosing the magnitude of the market risk held by the bank at the end of 1994. It will also demonstrate how using a risk‐impacted value would have improved the disclosure of how much the bank stood to lose from their open positions.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the value‐relevance of regulatory financial reporting requirements for jurisdictional public utilities, natural gas companies and oil pipelines in the USA.

An event study methodology is used to examine the stock market's response to regulatory accounting and reporting requirements. Also, the explanatory power of regulatory disclosures pertaining to fair values of on‐balance sheet derivatives is tested.

The empirical findings suggest the market responded favorably to the regulatory requirements, and the accounting and reporting changes are perceived as useful to investors in equity valuation.

This study extends the prior research by addressing the value relevance of disaggregated disclosures for on‐balance sheet derivatives. The results are generalizable to other standard setting environments, particularly in foreign markets that have experienced rapid growth in derivatives markets in recent years.

This paper explains the concepts of underhedging and overhedging in interest rate swaps and demonstrates how overhedged and underhedged swaps might be accounted for under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 (FAS 133) and international Accounting Standard No. 39. To illustrate, we use an interest rate swap with receive‐fixed, pay‐fixed swap leg foreign currency to explain the un derlying differences between overhedging and underhedging on foreign exchange risk. We further clarify that when both legs of an interest rate swap are specified with the same currency as in the situation of FAS 133 ‐ Example 5 beginning in Paragraph 131, accounting for overhedging or underhedging will be no different because there is no foreign exchange overhedging or underhedging risk that impacts swap valuation.

The purpose of the paper is to illustrate the complexity surrounding the meaning of the terms “economic reality” and “neutral representation” as these terms are applied to the resolution of financial accounting issues.

The paper examines the concept of epistemological objectivity in financial reporting through an analysis of issues raised by the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to accounting for internet activities and the concomitant manner in which the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) approached these issues.

An analysis of communications between the SEC and the FASB pertaining to accounting for internet activities reveals that, while these bodies seek to resolve issues in a manner that is neutral and objective, they often employ subjective reasoning in pursuing their regulatory purpose, thus raising questions about the extent of their concern with neutral representations of economic reality.

The paper adds to the criticisms of efforts which claim to be neutral representations of economic reality.

It has been said that standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) are more congruent with a principles-based approach to standards setting than those of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Revelations concerning accounting manipulations at Enron Corp., and the ensuing scandal resulting from these revelations, have prompted the FASB to reassess its approach to accounting standards setting with the possible intent of moving FASB standards-setting processes closer to a principles-based approach. One area that IASB standards tend to emphasize more than FASB standards is the concept of substance over form. The bankruptcy of Enron Corp. provides a vivid illustration of how companies may use the legal form of transactions to obscure their economic substance. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the concept of substance over form by investigating Enron’s use of misleading accounting practices in the following areas: (1) off-balance sheet financing; (2) revenue recognition; and (3) financial statements disclosures. In these three areas of accounting concern, the chapter sets forth the relevant US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) requirements, along with the ways in which Enron manipulated GAAP while concealing the economic substance underlying the transactions. It is the argument of this chapter that had the concept of substance over form been properly applied at Enron, investors and creditors would have been provided with a more realistic view of the company’s financial position and its results of operations, perhaps avoiding what became the one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in US history. The conclusion is that the FASB should focus on the concept of substance over form as it contemplates moving toward a principles-based approach to accounting standards setting.

Statement of Financial Standards No. 133 (SFAS No. 133), “Accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities” became effective for all publicly held companies for fiscal periods starting after 15 December 2000. Consequently, 31 December 2001 was the first reporting date for most companies under its provisions. This study examines the annual reports of the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average to determine the extent to which these companies complied with the provisions of SFAS No. 133. A surprising finding was that a large number of the sample companies reported that the effect of their hedging activities was immaterial. The study also found that the information disclosed about the derivatives held by the sample of companies was scattered throughout their annual reports, hard to understand, difficult to follow and lacked uniformity. It was concluded that it would take a great deal of effort for even a reasonably informed reader of the financial statements to gather and analyze the information relating to a company's use of derivatives, and as a result the desired level of financial transparency on the use of derivative financial instruments is not being achieved. It is recommended that a more uniform reporting format be developed and used.