Search results

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.

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.

Government reforms have seen shifts from rules-based to principles-based risk regulatory governance. This paper examines the effects of principles-based risk regulatory reforms on public sector risk management (RM) and management control practices in public sector organizations (PSOs).

The principles-based regulation focuses on providing autonomy to PSOs while maintaining control over their actions without direct intervention. This resonates with Foucault's notion of how modern forms of governments operate. The research is informed by Foucault's concept of governmentality. The authors conducted a qualitative field study of an Australian PSO, gathering and analysing data from interviews, focus groups, and archival documents.

The findings show the capillary modes by which principles-based risk regulatory regime penetrates and works with management control practices in pursuit of regulatory goals within the PSO the authors studied. In addition, the authors find that the principles-based approach (focusing on autonomy) and rules-based approach (focusing on control) are not opposites in kind and effect but rather, autonomy should be understood as a central pillar of control. Furthermore, the findings show how cultural controls and formal controls are not in conflict but are interconnected in RM practices, with cultural controls providing control architecture for RM and formal control translating the control architecture into routines. Finally, the study provides insights into how enterprise risk management (ERM) provides capabilities for and routinizes RM practices in a PSO and the management control systems (MCS) that enabled this to occur.

The paper provides novel insights into how MCS are infiltrated, mobilized and deployed to enact principles-based risk regulatory reforms. These insights are useful for regulators, practitioners and researchers.

This study tests the effect of accounting standards precision on financial restatements and the influence of accounting standards precision on different types of restatements (including errors and irregularities). What is more, the heterogeneity between accounting standards precision and financial restatements is verified in this paper. In the further analyses, the authors also examine the mediating roles and moderating roles on the correlation between accounting standards precision and financial restatements.

The focus is placed on an unbalanced panel of 18,766 samples over the period of 2007–2017.

The authors find that firms' restatements decrease when standards are more principles-based (low accounting standards precision). Especially, irregularities significantly decrease when firms' standards are more principles-based. What's more, the negative relationship between principles-based standards and restatements is more significant in “big four” accounting firms. Moreover, from the mediating effect results, the authors find that low accounting standards precision decreases a firm's financial reporting complexity and increases equity restriction, which in turn can help decreasing its financial misreporting. From the moderating effect results, the authors find that the higher the TOP1 and the more analysts following the firm, the higher the benefit of accounting standards precision to misstatements.

The results of this study provide a theoretical reference for accounting standard setters and are helpful to inform investors and regulators about the influence of Chinese accounting standards on restatements.

This paper aims to compare two types of prompts, encouraging participants to think about real-world examples or engineering principles to show how these two approaches can result in vastly different design practices.

Two studies (N = 20, N = 40) examine the impact of two different prompts. Non-expert students, from high school and university, completed a hands-on, engineering design task in pairs. Half were prompted to ideate using real-world examples, while the other half were prompted to ideate using engineering principles. The findings are based on human coding and artifact analyses.

In both studies, and across multiple measures, students in the principle-based condition performed better than students in the example-based condition.

A seemingly small difference in how students are prompted or encouraged to approach a problem can have a significant impact on their experience. The findings also suggest that leveraging engineering principles, even when those principles are only loosely formed, can be effective even for non-experts. Finally, the findings motivate identifying student reasoning strategies over time as a potential means for assessment in Makerspaces.

Encouraging makers to think about different ways for approaching problems can be an important way to help them succeed. It may also be a useful way to chronicle their learning pathway.

To the author's knowledge, explicitly looking at ideation strategies has not been widely discussed within the Maker community as a way to support learners, or as a way to evaluate learning.

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether principles-based vs rules-based accounting standards have an effect on measures of financial reporting quality and earnings management strategies.

This study uses a firm-year-specific variable that captures the extent to which firms’ accounting and operating behavior is affected by the characteristics of a specific standard in the USA. Measures of absolute accruals, financial misconducts, signed abnormal accruals and abnormal cash flows are used to assess the effects.

The results show that absolute magnitude of accruals and probability of financial misconduct is lower, and accrual earnings management is higher when firms’ standards are more based on principles. The study also suggests that potentially costlier real earnings management is a consequence of rules-based standards.

This study relies heavily on measures from the prior accounting literature, hence, care has been exercised in generalizing the findings.

This study has direct implications for a number of stakeholders, including standard setters, policymakers, securities regulators, researchers, investors, financial statement preparers and auditors. For example, the future development of accounting standards can be supported by the empirical conclusions in this study together with previous standard-setting ambitions, commentaries, experiments and analytical work.

This study extends prior single-country studies on reporting quality and cross-country studies on transition effects of firms switching from local to International Accounting Standards by observing the impact of accounting standard characteristics on additional measures of reporting quality and accrual as well as real earnings management when holding institutional factors constant. The study also offers archival evidence complementing prior commentaries, experiments and analytical work.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the change in accounting standards from the rules-based local GAAP to the principles-based IFRS influences a manager’s opportunistic auditor choice for a favorable audit opinion, opinion shopping (OS) behavior. The authors view that IFRS adopters exploit the flexibility of IFRS to their advantage and search for auditors that are more likely to give clean opinions. However, auditors may refuse to yield to client pressure for OS, because of the greater potential audit risk under principles-based standards.

This study applies a difference-in-differences methodology by using Korean listed firms (i.e. IFRS adopters) as a treatment sample and Korean unlisted firms that do not voluntarily adopt IFRS (i.e. K-GAAP users) as the control sample. OS behavior is measured by the methodology of Lennox (2000).

The results of this study show that the OS behavior of IFRS adopters increases after IFRS adoption compared to that of K-GAAP users. This phenomenon is more prevalent when they are audited by non-Big 4 auditors or when they are economically important to auditors. These suggest that the principles-based IFRS without specific rules increase the scope of OS, and auditors tend to accept OS clients by weighing up its costs and benefits.

This study contributes to the literature on OS by presenting that the approach of accounting standards can be an important influencing factor on a firm’s successful engagement in OS. This finding also provides policy implications for many economies by suggesting mechanisms that can be developed to reduce clients’ opportunistic auditor choices under principles-based accounting standards.

This article examines rule amendments issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2020, as part of the SEC’s ongoing “disclosure effectiveness initiative”, that revise in significant respects the requirements for financial disclosures presented in SEC filings as Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the rule amendments in the context of contrasting perspectives expressed by the SEC, individual SEC Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the amendments, and market participants regarding the merits of the SEC’s movement away from prescriptive disclosure requirements towards a more principles-based approach to disclosure.

Although the SEC’s rules have long reflected a mix of principles-based and prescriptive disclosure elements, the principles-based emphasis in this latest stage of the SEC’s disclosure modernization project accords the managements of filing companies greater latitude to determine whether financial information is material to investors and how such information should be presented.

This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure development from an experienced securities lawyer.

This study aims to investigate the nature and extent of compliance to the principle-based corporate governance initiatives by the listed companies in the South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPSE) in Fiji. Three important questions are addressed: whether listed companies in Fiji have complied with the principle-based governance practices? Did compliance with principle-based recommendations lead to an improvement in the listed company's financial performance and legitimacy? How the institutional factors have contributed towards corporate governance practices in Fiji?

Panel data for the SPSE companies over the period 2008-2011 are analysed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Tobin's Q and return on assets (ROA) metrics are used as dependent variables.

The findings indicate that listed companies have adopted the Capital Market Development Authority's (CMDA) recommendations by establishing subcommittees for audit and remuneration, having non-executive/independent directors on the board and separate chair and CEO positions in order to gain legitimacy from stakeholders. Results support the view that the CMDA recommendations of board sub-committees (audit and remuneration) have had positive influence on company performance measured by Tobin's Q. The findings of this study give support to the principle-based corporate governance practices adopted in Fiji to gain legitimacy.

The study adds to the governance literature by focusing on the principle-based governance practices in a small remote island country, Fiji which has relatively small economy, capital market and company size. Finally, the study adds to institutional theory by showing how companies' corporate governance choices are affected by the severity of agency conflicts and the way corporate governance is regulated.

The purpose of this paper is to examine investors’ propensity to litigate when harmful events occur subsequent to accounting choices. Consistent with Culpable Control Theory, the authors find that investors are more likely to pursue litigation against management when managers are perceived to have more financial reporting flexibility, such as when they apply imprecise, principles-based accounting guidance. Investors are more likely to pursue litigation when they find management more responsible for harmful events, and they find management more responsible for those events when they perceive management to have more reporting flexibility. To provide additional insight, the authors investigate how the relationship between reporting flexibility and assessed manager responsibility is mediated by investors’ perceptions of management’s self-interested behavior. The authors consider monetary and non-monetary motivations for litigation against management such as recouping financial losses and punishing management. The results suggest that recouping financial losses is not the sole motivation for litigation. The authors provide evidence that punishing management is an important non-monetary component of the litigation decision. The results contribute to the limited literature on investor litigation decisions and inform the debate surrounding the potential effects of more principles-based accounting standards.

The authors test the hypotheses using an experiment with a 2×1 between-subjects design in which the authors manipulate reporting flexibility at two levels by varying the precision of accounting guidance and measure all other variables of interest. Participants are 82 part-time executive MBA program students at a major public university in the USA. Most participants work full-time (94 percent), own or have owned stocks either directly or through retirement plans (84 percent), indicate general investment knowledge (97 percent), and report high levels of familiarity with corporate financial statements, including balance sheets and income statements (92 percent). Thus, the authors conclude that these executive MBA students are reasonable surrogates for investors.

Consistent with the predictions, perceived management reporting flexibility affects investors’ propensity to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events such as investor losses, employee job losses, and economic losses suffered by a community mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. As predicted, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. This result suggests that the litigation decision is driven at least in part by corporate governance goals such as the desire for retribution or punishment of management. The second experiment provides additional support for the theory that the desire to punish management is an important component of investors’ litigation decisions.

The research makes important contributions to the literature on investor litigation and to the ongoing debate regarding principles- vs rules-based accounting standards. While some archival research addresses the conditions under which securities litigation occurs, little empirical research has directly addressed the investor decision to litigate. The paper provides additional evidence to address the question of why investors litigate. By doing so, the authors add to the debate on the desirability of shifting from more rules-based to more principles-based accounting standards.

The theory tested in this study could be used to design mechanisms to mitigate the differential propensity for investors to litigate under differing accounting regimes. As standard setters discuss a move to more principles-based standards in the USA, some observers have expressed concern that investor litigation will increase. The theory suggests that if the standard-setting body can control perceptions of management reporting flexibility such that investors believe principles-based standards provide no more flexibility than rules-based standards, they can limit an increase in the amount of investor litigation.

The authors contribute to theory by providing evidence regarding why investors desire to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. Furthermore, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. Those findings provide theoretical contributions to the literature.