Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of competitive pressure on financial statements’ comparability (comparability) by analyzing various dimensions of competition.

The authors study the effect of competition on comparability using the comparability measure of De Franco et al. (2011) and various proxies for competition, competition from existing/potential rivals and non-price competition (NPC).

This study documents that competition is positively associated with comparability, and this effect is more (less) pronounced for industry followers (leaders). The authors also document that competition from existing rivals enhances comparability, but competition from potential entrants does not. Moreover, NPC is also a significant determinant of comparability. Furthermore, the competition from existing/potential rivals plays no significant role in the production of comparable financial statements in state-owned enterprises. The results are robust to alternative measures of comparability and methodological approaches.

This study is the first empirical study that documents a new channel (comparability) through which competition affects financial statements. The findings support the argument that competitive pressure acts as a governance mechanism, disciplines management and increases comparability leading to lower information asymmetry (governance view). However, the findings contest the argument that higher competition motivates managers to withhold information (proprietary cost hypothesis). By examining the effect of state ownership, this study might also help to characterize the effects of changes in corporate objectives on managerial decisions related to financial reporting.

This study aims to examine whether accounting comparability between two firms, as measured by De Franco et al. (2011), reflects closeness in the amounts of cash flows and accruals between the firms.

Using 278,452 pair-year observations over the years 2003–2019, the author evaluates the research question using regression models.

Closeness in cash flows and closeness in accruals both increase accounting comparability and the effect of closeness in cash flows is greater. The effect of closeness in earnings is greater than the combined effects of closeness in cash flows and accruals. Earnings quality strengthens, while product closeness weakens, the effects of closeness in earnings and closeness in cash flows.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to empirically test the link between the closeness in earnings components and accounting comparability. This study is also the first to examine cash flows versus accruals in the context of accounting comparability.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate country-level and firm-level determinants of within-country accounting comparability for 16 European Union countries plus the USA in the post-International Financial Reporting Standards adoption period.

The authors use ordinary least squares regression to test the hypotheses with a correction for heteroscedasticity.

The authors find that firms in countries with rules-based accounting, higher quality public auditor work environments, stricter enforcement of accounting standards and more reliance on equity-market financing have higher within-country comparability with each other. At the firm-level, the authors find that firms which are larger, engage in less earnings management, and have lower return-on-asset volatility have higher within-country comparability with each other.

The authors use one measure of accounting comparability. Alternative measures of accounting comparability could test the hypotheses more completely.

The findings of the paper may help the regulators make more efficient policies to establish an efficient financial market within their country.

The paper is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to identify country-level and firm-level determinants of within-country accounting comparability. It contributes to the accounting literature by completing the theory of international accounting comparability from the within-country perspectives, as prior literature focuses on the cross-country perspective of international accounting comparability.

The starting‐point of the article is the inconsistency between the established practice of acceptance in many cases, of economic policy (i.e. progressive taxation, national insurance policies) and the theoretical rejection of interpersonal comparisons of utility who see it as an unscientific value judgement. The inconsistency is explained by identifying three groups of theorists: (1) those who thought of comparability as a value judgement and unacceptable for economic policy considerations (positivists), (2) those who agreed with the positivists, on the normative nature of comparability but accepted it as a basis for economic policy, and (3) those who thought of it as part of a scientific economics. The implication was that, despite the dominance of positivist methodology in other sub‐fields, the historical experience points to the difficulty of applying positivist methodology to the issue of comparability. If the inconsistency is thus due to the inappropriateness of the positivist approach, the only possible solution is the explicit abandonment of this approach at least in matters related to the collective aspects of economics.

Type of audit opinion is important for all stakeholders. Firm-specific characteristics have a direct impact on the type of audit opinion. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between accounting comparability (as a micro level characteristic), financial reporting quality (as a macro level characteristic) and audit opinions.

This study uses a multivariate regression analysis to tests it hypotheses to a sample of firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange during 2015–2019. To measure accounting comparability, the authors use De Franco et al. (2011) model, and Hutton et al. (2009) model to measure financial reporting quality. The authors use type of audit opinion, and auditor's remarks (explanatory notes) as the measure for audit opinions.

The authors find a negative association between accounting comparability, and the proxies for audit opinion. The authors also find that a negative association between financial reporting quality and audit opinions. These results suggest that higher accounting comparability, and higher financial reporting quality (proxied by earnings quality) increases auditor tendency to issue unmodified audit opinion.

To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first study that empirically examines the association between accounting comparability, financial reporting quality and audit opinion. This study provides empirical support for the theoretical views on the association between financial reporting quality and audit opinion. The results could be of interest of both auditors and managers, especially in emerging capital markets, who seek to improve financial reporting quality.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relation between financial statement comparability and corporate investment efficiency of a large sample of US firms.

The authors use a large sample of US-listed firms from 1981 to 2013. The authors use several econometric methods including ordinary least square, firms fixed effects and mediation effects regression. Sensitivity tests that include the use of alternative measures of both the dependent and independent variables provide results that are consistent with the authors’ baseline model results.

The authors find that financial statement comparability mitigates risks associated with both under-investment and over-investment. They also find that product market competition mediates the relation between financial statement comparability and investment efficiency. The authors consider this to be a function of a competitive environment, whereby firms normally disclose less private information. This in turn reduces the effect of financial statement comparability on investment efficiency. Conversely, where there are higher levels of product market competition, it is less likely that firms will under-invest. Their results are consistent with these predictions.

The authors contribute to this growing field of research by providing evidence that financial statement comparability does in fact improve firms’ investment efficiency. Findings enhance our understanding of the relation between investment efficiency and financial statement comparability which is likely to have flow-on effects in terms of financial reporting quality and firm value. This study also contributes to research that links agency theory to financial statement comparability through an analysis of moral hazard and adverse selection tenets, and how it leads to reduced levels of investment inefficiency in a firm.

The rule change for segment reporting in 1998 has arguably made segment reporting more relevant through the adoption of the management approach. Meanwhile, the management approach has resulted in a decrease in the comparability of segment income. We introduce firmspecific measures of changes in relevance and comparability due to the rule change. Our treatment firms experienced an increase in the relevance of segment reporting but a large decrease in the comparability of segment income; our benchmark firms barely experienced any changes in relevance and comparability. We examine earnings forecasts before vs. after the rule change issued by financial analysts—a major user group of segment reporting. Relative to benchmark firms, treatment firms’ analyst forecast error reductions around the segment disclosure event are not significantly different after the rule change than before the rule change, but treatment firms’ forecast dispersion reductions around the segment disclosure event are significantly larger after the rule change than before the rule change. These results suggest that despite the decrease in comparability, the new segment reporting rule has increased the decision usefulness of segment information by decreasing disagreement among analysts.

Accounting comparability has been the subject of significant interest in empirical financial accounting research. Recent literature, particularly that following De Franco et al.’s (2011) influential study, has focused on utilizing the output of the financial reporting process to measure accounting comparability. In this paper, we conduct an early survey of studies using output-based measures of comparability. We provide two distinct contributions to the literature. First, we describe and comment on four important measurement concepts as well as the studies that introduced them. With this methodological contribution, we aim to facilitate the measurement choice for empirical accounting researchers engaged in comparability research. Second, we classify the sub-streams of literature and related studies. In providing this content-related contribution, we sum up what has already been achieved in output-based accounting comparability research and highlight potential areas for prospective research. As a whole, our study attempts to guide empirical researchers who (plan to) undertake studies on accounting comparability in selecting relevant topics and choosing adequate approaches to measurement.

This paper aims to investigate financial statement comparability in the extractive industry. This paper focuses on the extractive industry because International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) contain limited guidance on the accounting treatment for exploration and evaluation (E&E) costs and IFRS 6 – Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources allowed firms to continue with existing divergent accounting treatment of E&E costs.

The authors use data from Australia, a country that adopted IFRS in 2005 with a large extractive industry. They also compare changes in cross-country comparability around the IFRS adoption date between Australian firms and adopters relative to Australian firms and non-adopters to better isolate changes in comparability that are attributable to the adoption of IFRS from other sources that are not related to the adoption of IFRS. The authors measure comparability consistent with De Franco et al. (2011) where financial statements are comparable when two firms produce similar accounting amounts for similar economic events.

For non-extractive industry firms, the authors find the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms increased with other adopters and that this increase was relatively greater than the increase with non-adopter firms. This evidence is consistent with comparability benefits associated with the adoption of IFRS. However, for extractive industry firms, the authors do not find a significantly greater increase in the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms with adopters relative to the increase with non-adopters, suggesting that the increase is likely not associated with the adoption of IFRS. In additional analysis, they find that following IFRS adoption non-extractive Australian firms have greater within-country comparability relative to extractive Australian firms, while there was no difference in the pre-adoption period.

The evidence suggests that the divergent practices for E&E costs under IFRS 6 and the lack of an accounting standard that deals with matters relating to the extractive industry hinder the comparability of financial statements in this industry.

This study aims to concern about the relationship between management managerial attributes (management entrenchment, narcissism and overconfidence of the chief executive officer, board effort and real and accrual earnings management) and comparability of financial statements listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange. In other words, this paper aims to answer the question that “whether managerial attributes contribute significantly to the comparability of financial statements or not”.

The multivariate regression model is used for hypothesis testing. The hypotheses were examined using a sample of 768 listed observations on the Tehran Stock Exchange during 2012–2017 and by using from the multivariate regression pattern based on panel data techniques and the random-effects model.

The obtained results show a significant and negative relationship between management entrenchment, real and accrual earnings management, comparability and the relationship between management narcissism, overconfidence and board effort and comparability of financial statements is positive and significant.

As the present study is the pioneer study on such topics in the emerging markets, it provides valuable information concerning the intrinsic and acquired features of the management for users, analysts and legal institutions with a considerable impact on the comparability of financial statements. Moreover, this study’s results contribute significantly to the development of science and knowledge in this field and fill the gap in the literature.