Search results

This chapter reports the results of a study of student performance in upper-level accounting courses, especially intermediate accounting I and cost accounting. Of particular interest is the performance of students who transferred the introductory accounting courses from a two-year institution versus native four-year students. We found that after controlling for a number of aptitudinal and demographic variables, transfer students performed at a significantly lower level than native students. On average, the difference was about 0.8 of a grade point. This study also provides evidence of grade inflation at two-year institutions relative to our four-year institution; documents a mean lag time of more than two years for community college students between taking principles of accounting courses and the upper-level courses; and shows that although the transfer shock lessens as the students continue in the major, it does not disappear. We also discuss the implications of our findings.

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 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.

Accounting theorists agree that no comprehensive theory of accounting has yet been developed. In the absence of such a theory, the question arises whether sufficient accounting principles are created through accounting research. This article acknowledges that accounting principles are not solely the result of academic research and that current accounting practice through its standard‐setting process contributes far more to the development of accounting principles. Hence the role that accounting theory and research should play in developing accounting principles is a vital academic question. The discussion in the article focuses on the normative and descriptive (or the more modern positivistic) approach to the development of accounting theory, the positivistic nature of mainstream accounting research, a possible decision‐useful theory of accounting and the role of interpretative and critical research. All of these developments are beneficial to accounting since they open up accounting to a diversity of research approaches that will collectively improve the status of accounting research and possibly accounting theory. The role that these developments fulfil in creating appropriate accounting principles, however, is debatable.

Accounting practices vary not only across firms, but also across countries, reflecting the respective legal and cultural background. Attempts at harmonization therefore continue to be rebuffed. The purpose of this paper is to argue that different wordings in national laws, and different interpretations of similar wordings in national laws, can be explained by taking recourse to the philosophy of language, referring particularly to Searle and Wittgenstein.

The example of the substance over form principle, investigated in seven countries, is particularly suitable for this analysis. It is known in all accounting jurisdictions, but still has very different roots in different European countries, with European and international influences conflicting, which is reflected in the different wording of the principle from one country to the next, and the different socially constructed realities associated with those wordings.

This paper shows that, beyond accounting practices, the legal and cultural background of a country affects the wording of national law itself. The broad conclusion is that different socially constructed realities might tend to resist any attempt at harmonized socially constructed words.

The paper contributes to the debate surrounding the possible homogenization of accounting regulations, illustrating the theory of the social construction of both “reality” and “language” on the specific application of one common principle to various Member State environments.

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 purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of a principles-based accounting standard with guidance (principles-with-guidance approach), stringency (conservativeness) of numerical thresholds, and incentives (high or low debt-equity ratio environment) on the judgments of Japanese auditors in a lease accounting setting.

To reflect Japanese auditors’ judgmental features, this study adopts a quasi-experiment that uses both manipulation for different environments (i.e. stable or critical financial condition) and perceptions about the importance of “principles” and “guidance” in different types of lease accounting standards (i.e. substantially all, approximately 90 and 88 percent).

“Principle” (substantially all) has a positive effect, while “guidance” (approximately 90 percent) has a negative effect on encouraging Japanese auditors to capitalize lease transactions. “More stringent guidance” (approximately 88 percent) has a positive effect only when clients are in critical financial conditions. Other findings indicate that judgments of Japanese auditors are strongly influenced by their colleagues’ perceived judgments.

This is the first quasi-experiment to examine Japanese auditors’ professional judgments using a lease accounting setting. To find out whether Japanese auditors interpret and apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the similar manner as their counterparts in other countries will be important when Japanese policymakers make their final decision regarding the adoption of IFRS. The discussion and findings also contribute to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) with regard to enhancing global convergence of financial reporting.

This paper addresses the role of principles-based accounting standards as a potential mechanism for reducing firms' time delay of annual reporting disclosure while improving the timeliness of accounting information. The paper also contributes to the existing literature by addressing the mediating effects of the financial reporting complexity and the audit workload on the link between principles-based accounting standards and the time delay of annual reporting disclosure.

The focus is placed on an unbalanced panel of 20,943 samples over the period of 2007–2017.

The results show that the more principles-based the accounting standards are, the lower the time delay of annual reporting disclosure is, and the timelier the disclosure of accounting information is. The relationship between the two is more significant especially in the first two months after the end of the fiscal year. The findings are all robust after controlling for a series of sensitivity checks and endogenous concerns. From the mediating effect results, the authors find that principles-based accounting standards decrease the financial reporting complexity and the audit workload which in turn can help lower time delay of annual reporting disclosure. In addition, the negative effect of principles-based accounting standards on the time delay of annual reporting disclosure is more significant in the case that the company has “good news” including with no losses and receiving the standard auditing opinions. The results confirm the law of “good news announces early, bad news announces late.” Furthermore, the moderating effect results show that the higher the economic policy uncertainty index and the legal environment index, the lower the benefit of principles-based accounting standards to the timeliness of annual reports. The results of the economic consequences of timeliness suggest that the timely disclosure of accounting reporting will bring greater market reaction and contain more information, and the information of companies that disclose annual reports timely are more transparent.

This paper studies the impact of accounting standards on the timeliness of annual report disclosure, which enriches the literature in the field of macro policies and micro-enterprise behaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the “Kyocera approach” to business, i.e. the relationship between the Kyocera philosophy, the amoeba management system (AMS) and the associated management accounting system.

Utilising a variety of secondary sources, including semi-autobiographical works written by Inamori, the architect of AMS, the authors examine in detail the links between the underlying Kyocera philosophy and the management and accounting principles derived therefrom. These sources are used to examine the historical origins of these principles, their influence on both the AMS and the management accounting system, and how these have developed over time.

Both the AMS and the associated management accounting system can be shown to contain a mixture of influences, including traditional Asian/Japanese factors, but also Inamori/Kyocera-specific factors linked to Inamori's underlying philosophical approach to life and specific life experiences encountered by him. This suggests that while the Kyocera approach may be applicable more widely in Japan or Asia, outside of this context, the conflicts between Western and Asian cultures, although not necessarily insurmountable, may provide barriers leading to incomplete applications of the Kyocera approach

This study adds to the understanding of the interrelationship between management philosophy and management accounting practices, and the ability of individuals to determine culture within organisations. It illustrates the importance of historical research in obtaining a detailed understanding of the philosophical, cultural and religious underpinnings of current management and accounting practices.

This chapter explores the link between virtue and representational faithfulness in making judgments in a principles-based environment. The motivation for the chapter is the impending adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the United States and its principles-based approach to accounting. Even in a rules-based system, there are principles that provide a foundation for making decisions about the selection and implementation of accounting standards, financial statement presentation, estimates, and the sufficiency of evidence. A model is presented that reflects these judgments informed by virtue considerations that support substance over form decisions and a true and fair view. Implications for accounting education are discussed including the readiness of faculty to incorporate IFRS into the curriculum.