Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a soundly based epistemological underpinning for the kind of theorisation in which many classical financial accounting researchers engaged and thus to support a renewal of this programme.

The paper draws on pragmatist philosophy and, in particular, on Jules Coleman’s theory of “explanation by embodiment”. The applicability of this theory to the world of financial reporting is discussed. Various theorists and schools within classical accounting theory are examined from the perspective of Coleman’s ideas, focusing particularly on A.C. Littleton’s Structure of Accounting Theory.

The paper finds that classical accounting research works such as Structure of Accounting Theory can be interpreted as the search for Colemanian explanation by embodiment and that this provides them with a soundly based pragmatist underpinning for their theorisation.

This paper supports the resumption by academics, qua academics, of work to contribute to accounting standard-setting by offering argumentation that addresses accounting principles and methods directly, rather than only via the social scientific investigation of behaviour in the accounting arena.

Such a resumption would contribute positively to future standard-setting.

This paper contributes to the defence of classical financial accounting research from the charge of lacking theoretical rigour.

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.

Accounting conventions, norms, and standards play an important role in modern society in various areas related to the measurement of economic performance, allocation of capital, regulation of commercial activity, and taxation. From a historical perspective, the emergence of accounting standards-setting bodies at national and international levels is a recent phenomenon, dating perhaps only to the early years of the twentieth century. Accounting standards setting as a whole has been influenced by several key factors, including the practices of commercial enterprises and professional accountants, rules and regulations created by law, and academic theories regarding the nature of assets and the measurement of business income. The purpose of this chapter is to trace the historical development of accounting standards setting in the United States during the first part of the twentieth century, until approximately 1939, which marked the creation of the Committee on Accounting Procedure of the American Institute of Accountants, which was most likely the first accounting standards-setting body in the industrial world. From 1900 to 1939, there were significant debates about the advisability and feasibility of uniform accounting standards and the manner in which such standards ought to be implemented. These debates formed the basis for subsequent national and international accounting standards-setting bodies and are worthy of detailed examination.

The purpose of this Australian case study, set in the 1960s, is to comprehensively examine the responses of the two major professional accounting bodies to a financial/corporate/regulatory crisis necessitating the defence of the profession's legitimacy.

This historical paper draws on surviving primary records and secondary sources and applies the perspectives on the dynamics of occupational groups and the legitimacy typology of Suchman.

While the history of the accounting profession has been characterized by intra‐professional rivalries, this case study illustrates how such rivalries were put aside on recognising the power of collectivizing in defending the profession's legitimacy. Based on the available evidence, pragmatic legitimacy is shown to have been a key focus of attention by the major accounting bodies involved.

The paper may motivate similar studies in Australia and elsewhere, thus potentially contributing to developing a literature on comparative international accounting history. The evidence for this historical investigation is largely restricted to surviving documents, making it necessary to rely on assessments of the key sources.

In addressing responses to crises in defending the legitimacy of the profession as a whole, the paper makes an original contribution in exploring the relationship between literature on the dynamics of occupational groups and on legitimacy management.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

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 examine accountants’ application of principles-based accounting standards to a lawsuit contingency recognition scenario and the potential role that accounting work experience plays in mitigating accountants’ aggressive financial reporting.

This study presents a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with accounting experience (measured as high vs low) and contingency type (asset vs liability) as independent variables and accountants’ lawsuit contingency conservatism likelihood judgments and US$ recognition recommendations as the dependent variables.

Consistent with expectations, findings indicate that more experienced accountants are more likely to recognize liabilities and items that decrease income and less likely to recognize assets and items that increase income than their less experienced counterparts. Accountants also recommended recognizing lower (higher) mean US$ amounts for assets (liabilities), as expected. Supplemental analyses show a significant moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of contingency type and accounting experience on individuals’ US$ recognition recommendations is partially mediated through the nature of the conservatism judgment.

The finding that less experienced accountants report more aggressively than more experienced accountants when applying a principles-based standard supports the call for using judgment frameworks in imprecise standard settings and suggests that firms may want to ensure that accountants with adequate work experience are on hand as U.S. generally accepted accounting principles become more principles-based over time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the impact of accounting work experience on the application of principles-based accounting standards and the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Our supplemental analyses also identify the nature of the conservatism judgment as a mediating mechanism which partially explains more experienced accountants’ US$ asset and liability recognition recommendations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the mandatory shift from Norwegian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (NGAAP) to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Norway affected the valuation weights of earnings and book values, with the aim of gaining insights that are relevant for standard setters, investors and other users of accounting information.

The authors extend the IFRS literature on structural shifts between the pre- and post-adoption periods by comprehensively controlling for factors that vary between the IFRS sample and the domestic Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) sample. Moreover, the tests are designed to reveal the underlying accounting causes of the observed differences in value relevance.

IFRS are balance sheet-oriented and emphasize measurement at fair value. By contrast, NGAAP are earnings-oriented and focus on historical cost. IFRS also differ from NGAAP by recognizing more intangible assets. Overall, IFRS are thus less conservative than NGAAP. It was found that expanded fair value accounting increases the value relevance of book values and decreases the value relevance of earnings. However, the improved matching of intangible asset expenditures with the future economic benefits of such intangible assets increases the persistence and value relevance of earnings relative to book values.

This paper introduces a test methodology that is designed to identify the effects that specific accounting differences between the IFRS sample and the domestic GAAP sample have on value relevance. Consequently, this paper not only identifies the overall effects on value relevance but also contributes to the literature by identifying specific accounting differences between IFRS and GAAP that cause these overall effects, and thus obtain insights that are valuable for standard setters and other users of accounting information.

An episode in the development of accounting for Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme transactions is explored from a social constructionist perspective. The “carrying” of meanings between sub‐worlds of the financial accounting world through social processes, principally by means of the standard‐setting body’s conceptual framework, is shown to be implicated in the social construction, maintenance and modification of accounting meanings. The social constructionist model is developed in several ways, some of which respond to particular characteristics of the financial accounting world.