Search results

The use of technical terms to communicate accounting information can lead to misunderstandings when the meaning of such terms is not fully appreciated by the recipient of the information. The discipline of translation studies suggests that full equivalence in translation between languages is rare. This suggests that the risk of misunderstanding is exacerbated when technical terms are translated into another language. This paper examines the implications of mistranslations of technical terms in the context of theories from linguistics, which suggest that language influences the way we think. It uses three examples of accounting terminology to illustrate these problems. It concludes that the choice of an inappropriate label in the translation of accounting terminology is detrimental to international accounting communication and creates problems for users and preparers of translated financial statements as well as for researchers in, and students of, international accounting and for those involved in harmonisation and standardisation of accounting.

This paper examines the adoption of internationally accepted accounting standards by European companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The study focuses on the evolution of the use of different generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and on the features of those companies that have adopted these non‐local GAAP.

The sample was obtained from 336 Forms 20‐F for the period 1997‐2000. Using the information included in contingency tables and Pearson chi‐square statistic, proves whether there are any relationships between GAAP choice and other explanatory factors, i.e. country, size, industry, time listed and profitability.

The majority of the analysed companies keep using domestic‐GAAP. IAS firms are mainly non‐financial entities based in Switzerland and more profitable than US‐GAAP companies, which are mainly financial entities or companies engaged in SIC code 7 (services) based in Germany and less profitable than IAS firms.

The most important limitation of the paper is the period of the study. It is admitted that a deeper analysis would imply obtaining data from the most recent years.

Bearing in mind the next adoption in Europe of International Financial Reporting Standards issued by the IASB, the results of the paper give a clue about the type of European multinationals which tend to adopt non‐local GAAP, and which kind of internationally accepted accounting standards they preferentially adopt.

The purpose of this study is to identify how different Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) influence property management. The study is based on two basic accounting principles for the valuation of assets: fair value and historical cost. The study focuses on land and buildings as a main part of the total fixed assets of a company. It uses the framework of the Greek real estate market as an experimental setting where the principles of historic cost and fair value accounting can be compared.

The topic is approached using an integration of fixed assets into four main portfolio categories: own used; investments; held for sale assets; and inventories. According to this framework the study examines the accounting treatments under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), US GAAP and Greek GAAP for each portfolio transaction and analyses the impact of accounting entries to equity and profit and loss account.

The study results to a comparative analysis of the different studied GAAP and tries to establish a purchase price allocation method for property acquisition.

The contribution of this article is that it surveys principles, literature and practice about the above issues from a critical perspective, and presents a way to managing and monitoring real estate investments, using logical decision trees, from an accounting point of view.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the relatively rules-based US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the more principles-based International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards (IAS/IFRS) provide different opportunities for earnings management (EM). Such an examination is critical as the world moves toward principles-based standards.

Financial information for the fiscal years 1999-2004 from the annual reports of firms listed under the Prime Standard on the Germany Frankfurt Stock Exchange is analyzed. Data from the German Frankfurt Stock Exchange are used to resolve the difficulty in comparing accounting standards across different markets and countries with different institutional factors and corporate governance issues. The unique feature of dual listing in the German Frankfurt Stock Exchange allows firms listing shares under the Prime Standard to report in accordance with either the US GAAP or the IAS/IFRS before the IFRS adoption by the European Union in 2005. Strong legal enforcement in Germany ensures that reporting under each standard is in close compliance to the standard under comparison. Extending extant IFRS vs US GAAP EM research with discretionary accruals, this research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding by also examining EM through deferred tax expense and EM through research and development investment.

The findings reveal that EM through research and development investment is significantly higher for the IAS/IFRS firms. Similar to prior findings, EM through accruals is not found to be significantly different between US GAAP and IAS/IFRS firms.

The findings of this study advance the understanding of differences between US GAAP and IFRS with data from Germany where legal enforcement of standards is strong. In particular, this study reveals that principles-based standards with imprecise rules like IAS/IFRS may encourage structured management due to the expectation of error costs and compliance uncertainty. The results inform regulators considering IAS/IFRS adoption. In addition, this research highlights the importance of considering real EM in US GAAP vs IAS/IFRS studies.

This paper aims to examine whether sanctioning adoption of IFRS for US firms would produce accounting information of the same quality as those produced under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). This is a timely research since the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC; 2014) has asked for further review.

This study uses restatements of financial statements made by a sample of foreign firms listed on US stock exchanges using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in comparison to a control sample of US firms using US GAAP during the period of 2001to 2010. Statistical analysis of the frequency, sources and magnitude of the restatements and market revaluations to the announcement of the restatements are examined. Cross-country differences are also examined.

The results indicate that IFRS firms have a lower rate of restatements than US GAAP firms but with no significant differences in terms of sources of restatements and the impact on net income or shareholders’ equity. The market revaluations to restatement announcements show no significant differences between the two accounting regimes. Cross-sectional analyses indicate IFRS firms are on average from countries characterized by weak rule of law, ineffective corruption controls and lower efforts to promote private sector advancement.

The sample size in the paper is relatively small. To increase validity of the inferences from the Results, this issue should be readdressed with larger sample.

Results are important to accounting practitioners and policymakers.

Results are contributing in clarifying the SEC’s concerns of adopting the IFRS by US-based firms; thus, saving the investors the additional efforts and costs in comparing financial statements prepared under different accounting regimes.

This research is the first to use restatements as accounting quality criteria. The results suggest that adoption of IFRS by US-based firms would not produce accounting information that is significantly different in quality from those generated under US GAAP. This result should be of interest to the SEC in clarifying its concerns.

We examine the factors that associate with local government decisions to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GAAP non-compliance is surprisingly common among larger local governments, and that trend has important implications for public policy, financial management transparency, and government accountability. To examine the factors that drive GAAP compliance, we develop a conceptual framework based on the politico-economic perspective on accounting policy choice, and then test that model with data from a national survey of local government finance professionals. Our key contribution is that we incorporate accounting professionalism. The findings suggest that for many local governments the decision to adopt GAAP is a response to the pressures of professionalism rather than a rational response to political and economic motives.

The purpose of this study is to reveal the effect on earnings quality of switching to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) from Turkish generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) by comparing two sets of financial statements based on Turkish GAAP and IFRS.

This study is based on mathematical modeling. The variables (total assets, net income, total accruals, cash receivables, return on assets and size) in the models are core to the quantitative research that examines the relationship between them. In this study, the total accruals are computed based on the indirect approach, and the prediction error of the model represents discretionary accruals that reflect earnings management. The data set includes financial data prepared under IFRS and Turkish GAAP. The univariate and multivariate analyses are conducted by SPSS.

The results of this study indicate that IFRS does not cause any significant differences in total assets, but the net income under IFRS is larger compared to that under the Turkish GAAP. It is also found that while there is no significant difference in total accruals, there is a difference in discretionary accruals. In other words, Turkish firms use income-reducing discretionary accruals when adopting IFRS.

This study provides more insights into the effect of IFRS on earnings quality. It also provides evidence of the effect of accounting culture on IFRS adoption. As a code-law country in Turkey, publicly traded firms have to prepare financial statements based on both Turkish GAAP, which is rule-based and restricts management decisions with strict rules, and the principle-based IFRS which leaves more room to manipulate. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that reveals the effect of accounting standards on earnings management by comparing two sets of financials of the same period prepared under different standards.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

This paper aims to investigate whether the two dominant financial reporting regimes, US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are associated with audit pricing and audit report lags.

In 2007, the US SEC eliminated the requirement for foreign registrants to reconcile their financial statements to US GAAP from IFRS. In this post-reconciliation setting in the USA, the authors use panel ordinary least square regressions to examine a sample of foreign firms cross-listed in the USA reporting under IFRS and US domestic firms reporting under US GAAP during the fiscal year 2007–2019.

The authors find that the firms reporting under IFRS have longer audit report lags than firms reporting under US GAAP. In addition, the authors find that firms reporting under IFRS pay higher audit fees than their US GAAP counterparts. The results are robust after controlling for the firm- and country-specific characteristics as well as using propensity-score matching.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide empirical evidence that the differences between the two reporting regimes are associated with auditor behavior, possibly through additional audit efforts and audit complexity associated with auditing the principle-based IFRS relative to the rule-based US GAAP.