Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect on earnings quality in private firms caused by a negative shock to fundamental performance, while simultaneously addressing methodological challenges measuring fundamental performance present in prior accrual-based earnings management literature.

Fundamental performance is unobservable and, therefore, difficult to measure. Existing research has used proxies that are subject to estimation errors and endogeneity concerns (e.g. DeFond and Park, 1997, Balsam et al., 1995). This study attempts to overcome these issues by taking advantage of the exogenous shock in oil price which occurred in 2014 and by using a difference-in-differences approach to investigate the effect on earnings management caused by a negative shift in fundamental performance.

The results suggest that a negative shock in fundamental performance, indicated by the oil price shock in 2014, reduces earnings quality. This result holds for various robustness tests such as the use of propensity score matching, and the inclusion of firm fixed effects. Additional analysis suggests that the reduction in earnings quality is driven by an increase in positive discretionary accruals, suggesting that managers of private firms experiencing poor performance manage earnings upwards to conceal true performance.

This study contributes to the literature by examining the effect of a negative shock to performance in a setting of private firms and by addressing methodological challenges in prior literature. Private firms are fundamentally different from public firms, with the consequence that results from public firms may not be generalizable to private firms (e.g. Hope et al., 2012, Burghstahler et al., 2006, Ball and Shivakumar, 2005).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role family identity and reputational concerns plays when private family firms engage in earnings management.

The paper is conducted as an archival study using data from private limited liability firms in Norway over the period from 2002 to 2015. The dataset includes financial accounting data and data on family relationships between shareholders, board members and CEOs, where family relationships are determined through bloodlines, adoption and marriage, tracing back four generations and extending out to third cousins. To investigate the incidence of earnings management, the authors employ a measure of accrual-based earnings management (AEM) (Dechow and Dichev, 2002; McNichols, 2002) and a measure of real earnings management (REM) (Roychowdhury, 2006). They use whether or not the family name is included in the firm name (i.e. family name congruence) as a proxy for family members' identification with the family firm and their sensitivity to reputational concerns.

The authors’ results show that AEM is lower for family-named family firms. Moreover, their findings also indicate that family-named family firms are more likely to select REM over AEM, compared to nonfamily named family firms. This is even more pronounced when detection risk is high (high quality audit proxied by Big 4).

The quality of the authors’ findings is limited to the validity of their proxy for family firm identification and reputational concerns (the family name included in the firm name). Even though findings from prior research suggest that family name congruence is a valid proxy for identity and reputational concerns (e.g. Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2010, 2014; Rousseau et al., 2018; Zellweger et al., 2013), future research should investigate the validity of these results using alternative proxies for family firm identification. Future research should also investigate whether the authors’ findings are generalizable to public family firms.

The authors’ results suggest that the risk of AEM is lower for family-named family firms, whereas the risk of REM is somewhat higher, compared to nonfamily named family firms. These results might be relevant for financial accounting users, auditors and supervisory and monitoring bodies when assessing the risk of earnings management.

The paper is, as far as the authors are aware of, the first to investigate the role of family name congruence and detection risk when private family firms select between AEM and REM.

This study examines the reporting of impairment losses in family and non-family private firms. The socioemotional wealth (SEW) theory suggests that the reporting practices in family firms may differ from non-family firms and may vary among family firms.

The research question is examined using a large-scale archival study. The authors use unique register data on family relationships for Norwegian private firms provided by the CCGR database at BI Norwegian Business School.

Drawing on the socioemotional wealth theory, the authors predict and find that private family firms are more reluctant to report impairment losses compared to private non-family firms. The results also suggest that both the likelihood to report impairment losses and the impairment amounts increase with board independence in private family firms. The authors also find some evidence suggesting that private family firms with a family CEO report lower impairment losses than private family firms without a family CEO, but this result is less robust and should be interpreted with caution.

The true economic impairment is unobservable. The authors use proxies based on prior research to control for whether impairment losses are faithfully reported or not.

The results suggest a higher risk of impairment losses being managed in private family firms than in private non-family firms and that independent board members mitigate this tendency somewhat in private family firms. Awareness of this risk should have practical value for stakeholders such as non-family owners and creditors, external auditors, supervisory and monitoring bodies, and regulators.

This study contributes to the accounting literature by examining the reporting of a specific accrual (impairment losses) in the setting of private family firms. Prior research in this area is scarce.