Search results

The paper analyzes four cases of IAS adoption (Aérospatiale in 1989; Usinor in 1991; Coflexip in 1993; and Péchiney in 1995) to better understand the instructional logics behind the use of alternative or additional standards by French companies in the early 1990s.

The study employs multiple case studies to explain how and why the heterogeneity of adoption (IAS versus US GAAP) is a response to institutional complexity.

This research shows that French companies adopted IAS as long as they were not required to use US GAAP by their financial backers. The results highlight how the companies combine logics to respond to the complexification of the field. The authors outline how endorsement of logics by outside carriers (auditors, financial analysts, stock exchange commissions) and framing of logics by managers evolve in time and space within this complexification process.

This study contributes to the institutional complexity literature in that it focuses on distinct organizational responses to multiple institutional logics. More precisely, the choice of standards in primary consolidated accounts are viewed as an organizational response to compatible and conflicting demands from several levels: home countries, transnational areas and host countries with the aim of raising funds in the US.

This research makes a distinct link between institutional complexity and international accounting standards and US GAAP.

Explains that Canada is currently deciding whether to harmonize with US or international accounting standards and whether to allow Canadian SEC registrants to file their financial statements using US standards, outlines previous research on the information content of US/Canadian differences and tests the relative and incremental information content of 156 interlisted firms 1996‐1998. Explains the methodology and presents the results, which suggest that there is little difference in the relative information content of the two sets of standards although each provides information incremental to the other. Concludes that investors will not be harmed either by harmonization or by allowing financial reporting under US standards.

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.

The purpose of this paper is empirically investigate the pro forma disclosure behavior of US-listed foreign firms applying International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

The annual earnings press releases of US-listed foreign firms on the New York Stock Exchange are analyzed to compare the effect that reporting standard (specifically IFRS) has on pro forma disclosure frequency, disclosure characteristics and benchmarking.

US-listed foreign firms applying IFRS report pro forma disclosures more frequently than firms using the USA’s generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), but less opportunistically.

This paper extends Epping and Wilder’s (2011) study and contributes to the pro forma disclosure literature by providing a cross-country analysis of non-GAAP disclosure based on reporting standard (IFRS or US GAAP). Understanding the non-GAAP disclosure of firms applying IFRS is useful to investors and regulators, as more countries adopt IFRS.

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.

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 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.

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 paper describes a series of cross-curricular exercises intended to introduce students to specific differences between US GAAP and IFRS, while also helping students understand how US GAAP and IFRS differently answer broader fundamental questions about accounting. These questions involve relevance, reliability, and managers’ use of judgment. Students play varying roles of financial statement stakeholders, according to the roles represented by three courses in the accounting curriculum. In all courses, the managers of the hypothetical firm face strong reporting incentives. Students make decisions according to the roles they play in each course. We observed that students not only identified the differences between US GAAP and IFRS, but also came to appreciate the potential impact of IFRS on stakeholders. Students also appreciated the effect of reporting incentives on managers under different reporting regimes.

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.