Search results

This paper aims to investigate the impact of the filing of Form 20-F to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on short-term trading volume and return by those foreign firms which list their securities in the US Stock Exchanges.

The authors collected 402 American depository receipt (ADR) firms from 38 different countries that listed their securities in the US Stock Exchanges over a 10-year period of 2000-2009. A regression model was used to examine such impact, including the post year 2007 SEC elimination of reconciliation.

This paper found significant abnormal trading volumes and abnormal returns one day, two days and three days following the 20-F report for the sample firms whose financial statements were prepared under both home-country accounting principles and US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Firms originally using international financial reporting standards (IFRS) do not present abnormal return and abnormal trading volume. This indicates that US investors view IFRS to be as high-quality as US GAAP.

The findings might be limited to this period and might not draw statistical inference for the future period. This evidence offers support for the SEC’s elimination of the reconciliation requirement to US GAAP.

This study was carried out with the aim to investigate whether the release of Form 20-F by ADR firms offers any additional information useful to investors incorporating both abnormal return and trading volume, which is thought to be more sensitive.

This paper investigates the short-term return and volume reactions caused by the earnings and equity reconciliation from home-country accounting standards or IFRS to US GAAP for foreign cross-listed firms in the USA.

This study aims to determine whether financial statement users suffered a significant loss of information when, in November 2007, the SEC dropped the requirement for foreign private issuers using International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS firms”) to reconcile their financial statements to US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

The study investigates whether analyst forecast errors and forecast dispersion increased for IFRS firms to a greater extent than for US GAAP firms after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dropped the reconciliation requirement. Using a treatment group comprised of IFRS firms and a matched sample of US GAAP firms, this study uses regression analyses to compare forecast errors and dispersion for the last fiscal year the reconciliation was available and the first fiscal year during which the reconciliation was unavailable to analysts.

The study finds evidence that forecast errors for IFRS firms exhibited no systematic change after the reconciliation was no longer available for analysts covering those firms. Thus, it does not appear that dropping the reconciliation requirement was associated with a change in forecast accuracy. However, the study does find evidence of increased dispersion in the IFRS firms’ forecasts relative to their US GAAP counterparts after the reconciliation requirement was dropped.

These findings have implications for evaluating the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2007 decision to eliminate the reconciliation for IFRS firms. Specifically, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision does not appear to have significantly altered analysts’ information environments.

This paper contributes to the understanding of how a group of sophisticated financial statement users adapt to different sets of accounting standards.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on alternative accounting treatments over time to assess their impact on the level of conservatism in a comparison between Italian local accounting standards and USA generally accepted accounting principles.

A case study approach is adopted to investigate the accounting adjustments applied to net income and shareholders’ equity as included in the Form 20-F reconciliations reported by all Italian firms that were listed on a US market over the period 1999-2008. The methodology first introduced by Gray (1980) and frequently applied over 30 years to several international accounting comparisons is adapted to recognise a multi-period dimension of the accounting choice. In particular, the paper focuses on the temporal dimension of such adjustments in order to capture their attitude to reverse or become permanent over time.

The results show that the level of conservatism is visible in the measurement of net assets and is shaped by the prevailing directional effect of accounting adjustments that become permanent as their cumulative reversal is persistently delayed. Such a phenomenon arises and intensifies when the accounting differences relate to recurring operations and/or to long-term assets and liabilities. Amongst them those violating the clean surplus relation are the most controversial as they not only generate a permanent effect in the measurement of net assets, but also an opposite permanent effect in the measurement of earnings.

Future empirical research confirming the finding in different contexts might overcome the limitations of a relatively poor number of observations in the case study.

Identifying the duration of alternative accounting treatments is relevant to assess their potential influence on stakeholders decision-making process as this may steadily influence the future of a firm.

The propositions express a sequence of the timing effects of alternative accounting treatments that highlight the primary role of permanent differences in persistently shaping the value of net assets and help to provide a less erratic interpretation of the level of conservatism.

This paper investigates the factors influencing the future of the IASB, using as the point of departure, a review of its historical progression towards becoming the global accounting standard‐setting authority. It concludes that the IASB is an organisation vulnerable to (1) political lobbying of influential institutions, (2) US accounting authorities decision makers, (3) potential accounting scandals, and (4) cultural differences resulting in the misapplication of its standards around the world. Such factors should be borne in mind when charting the next steps for the IASB and in evaluating the comparability and quality of accounts produced under IFRSs around the world.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether reported net income as per US‐generally accepted accounting principles (US‐GAAP) has become comparable to net income as per International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board right before the removal of the US‐GAAP reconciliation requirement and what major accounting elements have caused the differences, if any.

Using Gray's index of comparability suggested by Haverty, the paper compares the reported net income under IFRS for a sample of US‐listed Chinese companies using IFRS with the reconciled net income under US‐GAAP.

Consistent with Haverty is the finding that net income under IFRS is still not completely comparable to net income under US‐GAAP for the same company and that the adjustment for tangible assets revaluation is a major contributor to the difference. In addition, different treatment of business acquisition is found to be another major cause of the incomparability. The comparability has improved at 10 percent threshold since Haverty's study.

This paper provides an update on the status of IFRS and US‐GAAP comparability and highlights an additional major area to work on towards improved comparability.

Studies show firms reporting using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (US GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are similarly valued in the market, however, these studies are limited due to the noise present in international studies from regulatory differences. This study aims to eliminate much of this noise by using a cleaner sample of all listings with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). This paper also looks at more detailed book value figures.

There have been previous studies on the differences in market valuation of firms reporting using IFRS vs US GAAP. Most of this research is confounded with difficulties due to different regulatory environments and volatile time periods. The study uses cleaner data following the SEC’s acceptance of IFRS financials without a 20-F Reconciliation. The authors use a large sample of non-US firms trading on US exchanges choosing to use either US GAAP or IFRS for SEC reporting purposes. The sample period starts two years after the SEC’s acceptance of IFRS financials without a 20-F reconciliation and is larger than earlier samples.

The authors show that there is no difference between IFRS and US GAAP firms’ overall value relevance, however, earnings are more value relevant when measured using IFRS and book value is more value relevant when measured using US GAAP. The authors find that the difference between US GAAP and IFRS can be explained, at least in part, by greater market multiples being placed on inventories and goodwill using US GAAP. This is offset in part by greater multiples being placed on other assets under IFRS.

The authors replicate earlier studies but also extend with a better sample and more detailed finings.

This study investigates the influence of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the interpretation and application of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by examining a group of SEC-selected foreign private issuers filing 2005 annual reports in the USA and reporting using IFRS for the first time.

This paper uses hand-collected information from SEC comment letters to analyze IFRS topics and documents the ultimate resolution of each SEC comment (no change to filing, current change to filing or prospective change to future filing). The authors use descriptive statistical analyses, as well as a logistic regression model involving the resolution of each SEC comment, to examine the SEC’s influence on the interpretation of IFRS.

The study finds both higher comment totals, and higher numbers of required filing modifications, for those IFRS pronouncements which were identified as needing improvement during the 2006-2008 convergence efforts by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Additionally, the study documents a decreasing likelihood of a filing modification when US generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP) guidance is referenced in comment letter correspondence involving IFRS topics.

The study extends the IFRS literature and the SEC comment letter literature by focusing on the resolution of comments directed at IFRS disclosures, as well as exploring the factors which influence whether a comment ultimately requires a filing modification.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the cost of equity capital for foreign firms listed in the US stock exchanges during 2004‐2009, a period that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shifted from requiring foreign issuers to comply with the US GAAP reconciliations to permitting the choice of IFRS in financial reporting.

The cost of equity of foreign firms in the IFRS reporting period was compared to that in the US GAAP reconciliation period. Also, the cost of equity of foreign firms was compared to that of matched US firms during the two periods.

The results show that the cost of equity in foreign firms is higher during the IFRS reporting period (2007‐2009) than the US GAAP reconciliation period (2004‐2006); foreign firms exhibit a constantly higher cost of equity than that of matched US firms in both periods; and the size of cost of equity difference remains the same with respect to the regulatory change. Further, it is shown that the change in foreign firms' cost of equity is affected by their home country's IFRS use.

Bonding theory suggests a reduced cost of capital for foreign firms cross‐listed in the USA because US listings require more substantial disclosure. The paper finds evidence that the SEC's waiver of US GAAP reporting does appear to reduce the bonding benefits for cross‐listed foreign firms, particularly those from IFRS adoption countries.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of choice of accounting standards on the value relevance and accrual quality of reported earnings and book values under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) versus US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The authors examine the effect of choice of accounting standards on the value relevance and accrual quality of reported earnings and book values under IFRS versus US GAAP using 404 firms from 37 countries listed in the USA. They use the modified Jones (1991) model to measure accruals.

The authors find that value relevance of the book value of equity is increasing (significantly) when the sample firms use IFRS to prepare their financial statements. They also find some evidence in support of the mediating effect of the choice of accounting standards on the accrual quality of the sample firms. The results of this paper indicate that sample firms with lower accrual quality (larger discretionary accruals) experience higher returns during the fiscal year. However, the authors also find that the positive association between size of discretionary accruals and returns is decreasing in the use of IFRS by the sample firms.

This paper adds to prior literature on the harmonization of accounting standards and emphasizes the role of accounting standards in the quality of financial reporting. By using the financial data of all foreign registrants listed in the USA, the authors are able to provide deeper and more representative evidence.

This study uses a simultaneous equations approach to examine the price‐earnings relationship of non‐U.S. firms that directly list their securities in U.S. capital markets or trade as American Depository Receipts (ADRs). The Hausman test shows that price changes and earnings changes are endogenously determined, thus the simultaneous equations approach is used to estimate the earnings response coefficient (ERC) and the returns response coefficient (RRC). Under the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation, the parameter estimates are biased downward because the OLS fails to correct for endogeneity. In general, our results show that the joint estimation procedure mitigates some of the single‐equation bias. The estimated ERC and the RRC are higher under the three stage least regression (3SLS) than under the OLS regression. In addition, the product of the ERC and the RRC coefficients approaches its theoretical value of one when using the 3SLS estimation. The evidence also shows that institutional factors affect the way the market value information for these firms. We find that the ERC and RRC are insignificant for the common law non‐ADR firms and significantly positive for common law ADR firms.