Individual investors’ attitudes towards listing requirements for foreign entities on U.S. stock exchanges and the promulgation of international accounting standards

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) currently requires foreign issuers of securities listed on U.S. securities exchanges to either employ U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) or include a statement of reconciliation to U.S. GAAP if they use their home country's accounting standards. With some exceptions, they are also required to comply with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOA). John Thain, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, states that these requirements hamper U.S. investments, economic growth, and employment opportunities. The Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), Sir David Tweedie, echoed Thain's comments. An important stakeholder who is affected significantly by the U.S. listing requirements is the U.S. individual investor. Accordingly this study examines their attitudes involving the extant rules for foreign listings on U.S. exchanges and other aspects of the issue. The study also examines their perceptions regarding accounting standard promulgation authority and the use of a global set of accounting principles. The results indicate that although U.S. investors are very much in favor of the listing of foreign companies on U.S. exchanges, they also endorse the current rule requiring either employment of U.S. GAAP or reconciliation to it as well as mandatory adherence to the SOA. In the area of accounting standards, although a large majority believed that the U.S. should control the accounting standards for U.S. listings, a smaller majority also believed that there should be a universal set of accounting principles for all stock exchanges.     

IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Assessing the Quality of Financial Reporting in South Africa,the United Kingdom,and the United States

In this study, we investigate whether financial reporting, using International Accounting Standards (IAS) results in quality disclosures, given differences in institutional and market forces across legal jurisdictions. This study contributes to the global accounting debate by utilizing U.S.-based companies complying with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) as a benchmark for measuring the quality of IAS as applied by South Africa (S.A.) and United Kingdom (U.K.) companies. Although South Africa, United Kingdom, and the United States are common law countries with strong investor protection, South Africa's institutional factors and market forces vary from that of the U.K. and the U.S. South Africa's financial market is less developed than that of the U.K. and the U.S. We compare the discretionary accruals of firms complying with U.S. GAAP to the discretionary accruals of U.K. and S.A. firms complying with IAS. This allows a comparison between companies (S.A. and U.K.) operating under different institutional factors and market forces that have adopted IAS versus U.S. companies that report under U.S. GAAP. Our sample, consisting of U.S., S.A., and U.K. listed firms, contains 3,166 firm-year observations relating to the period 1999–2001. The results of our study indicate that S.A firms utilizing IAS report absolute values of discretionary accruals that are significantly greater than absolute values of discretionary accruals of U.S. firms utilizing U.S. GAAP. In contrast, U.K. firms utilizing IAS report discretionary accruals that are significantly less than the discretionary accruals of companies in the United States reporting under U.S. GAAP. This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the quality of financial information prepared under IAS and its dependency on the institutional factors and market forces of a country.     

The impact of national GAAP and accounting traditions on IFRS policy selection: Evidence from Germany and the UK

The adoption of IFRS in the European Union in 2005 aimed to increase the comparability of publicly traded companies’ consolidated accounts. However, previous literature questions whether IFRS are applied consistently across countries with differing institutional environments, and therefore, whether de facto harmony has been achieved. We further examine this question by investigating IFRS accounting policy choices of listed companies in Germany and the UK between 2005 and 2009. We find that most firms, when choosing IFRS options, tend to retain accounting policies required by national rules. We also investigate national accounting traditions in the case of options under national GAAP and find that most companies continue these after adopting IFRS. Moreover, there appears to be little significant change in accounting choices over time from 2005 to 2009. Given the differences in accounting rules and practices that exist across countries, our results suggest that international differences in financial reporting are likely to continue under IFRS.     

The valuation properties of earnings and book values reported under IAS,domestic GAAP and U.S. GAAP: Evidence from China,Hong Kong,Japan, Korea and Singapore

This paper examines whether earnings or book value is the dominant valuation accounting measure for companies reporting under alternative accounting standards — International Accounting Standards (IAS)/International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) or domestic accounting standards of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and Singapore. Our sample consists of domestic firms in the five Asian countries and firms from these countries cross-listed in the United States as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from 2002 to 2011. For domestic firms, book value is more informative than earnings for firms from Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Japan and Korea during 2002–2011 although their accounting standards are influenced by different systems. For the ADR sample, book value is more informative than earnings for U.S. GAAP reporters and reconcilers during 2002–2007. However, earnings are more informative than book value for U.S. GAAP reconcilers from China. After 2007, ADRs in our sample from Hong Kong, Japan and Korea continued to file under U.S. GAAP. Some ADRs from China filed under U.S. GAAP and some filed under IFRS. Earnings are more informative than book value for IFRS users; however, book value has higher incremental value relevance than earnings for U.S. GAAP users. We contribute to prior research by providing evidence on the valuation properties based on accounting measures reported under different GAAPs for the Asian countries.     

Attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings: An exploratory study

In this study we explore attribute differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS earnings. Our study is motivated by the ongoing harmonization process in accounting standard setting as well as by recent convergence projects by the FASB and the IASB. We test two market-based earnings attributes, i.e., value relevance and timeliness, as well as two accounting-based earnings attributes, i.e., predictability and accrual quality. These attributes are tested for German New Market firms as they are allowed to choose between IFRS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting purposes. Overall, we find that U.S. GAAP and IFRS only differ with regard to predictive ability. The fact that U.S. GAAP accounting information outperforms IFRS also holds after controlling for differences in firm characteristics, such as size, leverage and the audit firm. However, our results also seem to suggest that these differences are not fully valued by investors, as we do not observe significant and consistent differences for the value-relevance attribute.     

Discussion of ‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP”

Ernstberger and Vogler [Ernstberger, J. & Vogler, O. (2008-this issue). Analyzing the German Accounting Triad with an Enhanced Multifactor Model—‘Accounting Premium’ for IAS/IFRS and U.S. GAAP Vis-à-vis German GAAP. International Journal of Accounting.] employ the concurrent use of three distinct accounting-standard regimes (German GAAP; U.S. GAAP; and IAS/IFRS GAAP) in Germany as a foundation for evaluating the relation between accounting standard regime and equity-return attributes. They find that firms using U.S. or IAS/IFRS GAAP have higher betas but yield lower returns (cost of capital) relative to firms employing German GAAP. They also find that portfolios designed to isolate the return impacts of U.S. and IAS/IFRS GAAP relative to German GAAP are priced in a risk-factor-like fashion. In this discussion I suggest that a good bit of this empirical evidence is problematic. I also discuss the implausibility of information quality being priced in a Fama and French [Fama, E.F. & French, K.R. (1992). The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance 47 (2): 427–465.] factor-like fashion. Finally, I introduce the importance of conditioning analyses of the relation between firm-level information quality and equity-market return (cost of capital) on the degree to which the shareholder base of a firm holds diversified portfolios.     

Voluntary disclosures of intangibles information by U.S.-listed Asian companies

This paper provides evidence on the voluntary disclosure of intangibles information for U.S.-listed Asian companies. The paper examines the following issues: (1) the effect of firm size, ownership concentration, proportion of foreign revenue, and leverage on voluntary disclosures of intangibles information by U.S.-listed Asian companies; and (2) the use of international standards, and the effect of domestic and global culture on those disclosures. Results indicate that larger firms, firms with greater ownership dispersion, and firms with lower leverage provide more voluntary disclosure of intangibles information. The paper also documents that companies from countries that are more individualistic provide more voluntary disclosure of intangibles information than companies from countries that are collectivist. Therefore, it appears that domestic culture does affect the voluntary disclosure of intangibles information in the U.S. This paper uses the index developed for Portuguese companies by Oliveira, Rodrigues, and Craig (2006), to measure voluntary disclosures of intangibles information thereby providing external validity to their instrument.     

IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry–Based Evidence from Germany's New Market

Motivated by the debate about globally uniform accounting standards, this study investigates whether firms using U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) vis‐à‐vis international accounting standards (IAS) exhibit differences in several proxies for information asymmetry. It exploits a unique setting in which the two sets of standards are put on a level playing field. Firms trading in Germany's New Market must choose between IAS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting, but face the same regulatory environment otherwise. Thus, institutional factors such as listing requirements, market microstructure, and standards enforcement are held constant. In this setting, differences in the bid‐ask spread and share turnover between IAS and U.S. GAAP firms are statistically insignificant and economically small. Subsequent analyses of analysts' forecast dispersion, initial public offering underpricing, and firms' standard choices corroborate these findings. Thus, at least for New Market firms, the choice between IAS and U.S. GAAP appears to be of little consequence for information asymmetry and market liquidity. These findings do not support widespread claims that U.S. GAAP produce financial statements of higher informational quality than IAS.     

An Investigation of the Relationship between Use of International Accounting Standards and Source of Company Finance in Germany

This study examines the relationship between use of international accounting standards and companies’ source of finance. We investigate the proposition contained in Nobes’ (1998) model that postulates outsider companies (those with a higher level of public finance) in weak equity–outsider markets (capital markets where public equity finance is not the dominant source of finance) are more likely to change their type of accounting system from one focused on information for creditors and tax authorities to one that meets the needs of external financiers. We found strong support for Nobes’ model. Using 408 German listed companies at 1999, we observed that companies with more outsider finance (the proportion of shares held by outsiders and the presence of public debt) were more likely to use international standards (U.S. GAAP or IAS). The results indicate the importance of controlling for source of finance at the company rather than country level in cross‐country studies investigating the benefits of adoption of international standards.     

Brand value accounting: an international comparison of perceived managerial implications

Data concerned with the managerial implications of brand value accounting were collected from accountants and marketing managers working in strongly branded companies in New Zealand (N.Z.), the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States (U.S.). Since the external reporting climate in the U.S. prohibits the inclusion of brand value as a separate asset in the published balance sheet, it was anticipated that U.S. managers would be the least positively disposed to the potential of beneficial managerial implications deriving from brand valuation. Contrary to this expectation, managers in the U.K are the least positively disposed to potential managerial implications associated with brand value accounting. This result is particularly interesting as brand value accounting has commanded considerable attention from the U.K. accounting profession since the late 1980s when several large U.K. companies elected to capitalize brand values in their external financial statements. In addition to the international differences noted, the degree of commonality of findings across the three countries is also noteworthy. The data reported provide strong support for the view that there is considerable potential for positive managerial implications from brand value accounting.     

Are IFRS and U.S. GAAP converging? : Some evidence from People's Republic of China companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange

This research investigates the comparability and convergence of two sets of accounting standards from 1996 to 2002: United States’ Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The investigation involves a sample of companies from the People's Republic of China (PRC) that are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). PRC companies traded on the NYSE generally prepare IFRS financial statements and provide a limited reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, creating a unique quasi-experimental opportunity to examine differences between two sets of accounting numbers produced by two different sets of accounting standards while holding the company constant. Comparability is measured by using Gray's index of comparability, and a set of measures are introduced to capture several dimensions of convergence over time in reported net income, net assets, return on net assets, and earnings per share. The evidence shows lack of comparability, caused largely by the revaluations of property, plant and equipment permitted under IFRS, but not permitted under U.S. GAAP. There is, however, substantial evidence of convergence over time.     

An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.     

Accounting Choice, Home Bias, and U.S. Investment in Non-U.S. Firms

This paper examines the relation between accounting choice and U.S. institutional investor ownership in non‐U.S. firms. We predict that U.S. investors exhibit home bias in their preference for accounting methods conforming to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because such methods are more familiar, reduce information processing costs, and are perceived as higher quality. We find that firms exhibiting higher levels (changes) of U.S. GAAP conformity have greater levels (changes) of U.S. institutional ownership. Lead‐lag regressions suggest that increases in U.S. GAAP conformity precede increases in U.S. investment, but changes in U.S. institutional holdings do not precede changes in accounting methods. We also find that the positive relation between U.S. GAAP conformity and U.S. investment holds regardless of a firm's visibility to U.S. investors (e.g., American Depositary Receipt listing, stock index membership, analyst following, firm size). However, we find that U.S. GAAP conformity has a significantly greater impact among firms already visible to U.S. investors.     

Regulatory flexibility and management opportunism in the choice of alternative accounting standards: an illustration based on large French groups

Due to the flexibility of domestic accounting regulations, French groups are entitled to refer to international or American standards for their consolidation. The objective of this research paper is to focus on the choices made by the 100 largest French companies during the last 16 years (1985-2000). In practice, apart from the French rules, three “alternative” sets of standards are used: the International Accounting Standards (IAS), “international principles,” and the U.S. GAAP. The percentage of companies referring to alternative (i.e., non-French) standards rose in the first part of the period, then fell. Additionally, while the number of companies choosing U.S. GAAP increased over the period as a whole, the number preferring IAS or “international principles” has been in sharp decline since 1994-1995. Our results show that in this voluntary move towards international accounting harmonization, the choices made by French companies have clearly varied according to developments in French accounting regulations and the changing power balance between the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) and the SEC-FASB. This indicates a certain degree of opportunism by the management, who clearly keeps one eye constantly on the cost-benefit trade-off.     

Contracts valuation assessment noise and cross-border listing of equities on U.S. and U.K. stock markets

This study develops and tests the hypothesis that firms in the home country have capital market incentives to cross-border list on foreign stock exchanges that have similar financial reporting with local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Non-U.S. firms' contracts and the underlying GAAP are based on the home-country culture and institutional climates. This connection with culture and institution makes the local GAAP's assessment of the contracts less spurious relative to foreign GAAP. Ball et al. [J. Account. Econ. 29 (2000) 1] note that contracting with stakeholders in the home markets is based on local GAAP's numbers, while cross-border listing provides settings in which the value relevance of local GAAP-based contracts is assessed based on foreign GAAP. Therefore, foreign investors' assessment of the contracts using foreign stock exchange GAAP or mindset of foreign GAAP is likely to result in an assessment noise, which is value irrelevant. The level of assessment noise depends on the differences between foreign and local GAAP. Because of the valuation implications of the assessment noise, we expect cross-border listing to diminish as the likelihood of assessment noise increases.As predicted, we find that assessment noise undermines cross-border listing on U.S. stock exchanges. Because U.S. and local GAAPs are based on different cultural and institutional environments, assessment noise arises if U.S. investors use the mindset of U.S. GAAP financial reports to assess local GAAP-based contracts of cross-border firms. The results are robust in the London Stock Exchange in which assessment noise is induced by interpreting local GAAP contracts as if they were based on U.K. GAAP. As expected, the influences of assessment noise on cross-border listings are more robust in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that harmonization of financial reporting is critical in attenuating the influences of assessment noise on global capital market developments.     

Examination of U.S.-based Japanese subsidiaries: Evidence of the transfer of the Japanese strategic cost management

As a result of global competition, many Japanese companies are now operating in the United States. This article presents a survey of the management accounting methods employed by U.S.-based Japanese manufacturers and documents evidence about the current direction of accounting practices that are being transferred from Japan to the U.S. work environment. The results of the study show that most of the U.S.-based Japanese firms are similar to Japanese domestic firms in their use of management accounting methods of target costing and value engineering, variable costing, and strategic adaptation of traditional methods such as standard costing and budgeting. It is also evident that U.S.-based Japanese affiliates may be influenced by U.S. practices, as shown by significant usage of activity-based costing and internal rate of return for evaluating capital investment projects. This article is an important part of a continuing effort to study the development of management accounting among foreign-owned subsidiaries in the U.S., helping them to meet the challenges of global competition. Additionally, expanding this line of research on foreign subsidiaries that apply world class management accounting practices in other countries may assist U.S. multinational firms in their overseas subsidiaries' operations. Two limitations of this study and, thus, suggestions for future research are identified. First, the data on U.S.-based Japanese affiliates were collected for one point in time. Second, this study did not match each U.S.-based Japanese affiliate with its parent in Japan.     

The Impact of Media Attention on the Use of Alternative Earnings Measures

The practice of reporting earnings measures that deviate from generally accepted accounting principles (non‐GAAP measures) has received negative attention in the media. In a period of increased regulatory concern for these reporting practices, we explore whether there has been a shift away from the use of non‐GAAP metrics. This study focuses on the Dutch situation, where regulators responded conservatively (‘light’) to the accounting scandals. This contrasts with the U.S., where regulators intervened with a radical (‘heavy’) reform of regulation. We analyse a sample of earnings press releases published in the period 2000–05 from companies listed at Euronext Amsterdam. Our findings indicate that Dutch companies report non‐GAAP measures frequently and prominently. However, companies' reporting behaviour changes after a peak in negative media attention for non‐GAAP reporting. The magnitude of the adjustments to GAAP earnings becomes smaller and companies seem to have different reasons to report non‐GAAP measures. The effect of the media attention is stronger when companies have been criticized for their non‐GAAP reporting in the press. Investors seem to have become more hesitant towards the use of non‐GAAP measures for their decision‐making after negative media attention. Together, these findings suggest that the negative media attention for non‐GAAP measures has influenced the decisions of investors and managers.     

An Analysis of U.S. and Latin American Financial Accounting Ratios

Financial accounting ratios of non-U.S. companies are subject to misinterpretation by U.S. investors due to differences in accounting principles, institutional practices, and economic environments. The purpose of this study is to compare selected financial accounting ratios of companies from seven Latin American countries with those of a matched sample of U.S. companies, and explain any observed differences in the ratios based on the above three factors. In general, the results indicated that the liquidity, activity, and coverage ratios of the Latin American companies were lower than those of the U.S. companies. The profitability ratios varied, however, with the profit margin on sales generally higher for the Latin American companies, the return on assets mixed, and the return on equity ratios not significantly different between the Latin American and U.S. companies.     

The value of the PCAOB’s international audit oversight on U.S. listed foreign companies: Evidence from an initial enforcement breakdown

Using, as a natural experiment, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s May 18, 2010, release stating that its oversight of certain foreign auditors had been denied, we examine investors’ early valuation of the PCAOB’s international audit oversight on U.S.-listed foreign companies. Comparing reactions for the release-exposed U.S.-listed foreign companies to reactions for other U.S.-listed foreign companies, we find a significant decline in the share values of the release-exposed companies. The decline is driven by companies with auditors from China; the on-list companies from the 19 on-list European jurisdictions do not experience significantly negative stock market reactions. Using difference-in-differences analyses of earnings response coefficients, abnormal stock returns and trading volumes surrounding earnings announcements, and analyst forecast dispersions, we find a decline in perceived financial reporting quality for the release-exposed foreign listings from China but not for the release-exposed companies from the 19 European jurisdictions—a finding in line with the results of the stock market reaction analyses. These results are consistent with the view that the PCAOB’s international inspection would create a net value for U.S.-listed companies from China.     

Did the FASB Codification Reduce the Complexity of Applying U.S. GAAP?

We examine whether the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Codification made it easier for preparers and auditors to locate relevant accounting guidance. We find that areas of U.S. GAAP with more dispersed and voluminous guidance before the Codification experience a larger post-Codification reduction in restatements. We find a similar decline in SEC comment letter questions referencing areas of U.S. GAAP with more dispersed and voluminous pre-Codification guidance. Our results suggest that before the Codification, preparers and auditors had difficulty in locating the appropriate accounting guidance and that the Codification mitigated this difficulty.