Search results

This study is motivated by recent research suggesting that the funding benefits of using Big Four auditors may not be as uniform as were previously assumed. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between use of Big Four auditors and access to debt capital by applying data from microfinance institutions (MFIs) in emerging countries, a population typically not investigated in accounting research.

The authors apply a unique hand-collected data set from 60 emerging markets and empirically investigate whether access to various debt categories is related to the use of Big Four auditors.

The authors find that access to international commercial debt, international subsidized debt and government agency debt is positively related to the use of a Big Four auditor. For local commercial debt, the authors find no association between auditor type and access to debt capital. The association between auditor choice and access to debt capital is stronger for nonprofit than for-profit MFIs.

This is the first audit quality study to include a broad sample of emerging countries, which in itself is an important contribution. As far as general audit quality research is concerned, the authors take the literature one step further by showing that the benefits of using a Big Four auditor may be dependent on the specific source of debt financing a firm or organization seeks to use. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that the for-profit vs nonprofit dimension influences the relationship between auditor choice and access to capital.

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.