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.     

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.     

Examining the differences between United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and International Accounting Standards (IAS): implications for the harmonization of accounting standards

Current trends indicate continued movement towards the harmonization of accounting standards, but not without difficulty and concern. At times, the political and financial market pressure, push the movement in opposite directions. The paper discusses the conceptual framework used in establishing Global Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (International Accounting Standards, IAS) and U.S. GAAP. Numerous transactional examples are illustrated under both Global GAAP and U.S. GAAP treatment. Several country specific references are presented demonstrating the difficulty in achieving harmonization. Implications for harmonization of accounting standards include arguments “for” and “against” Global GAAP.     

Discretionary accruals: signalling or earnings management in Australia?

We investigate the signalling effect of discretionary accruals (DAC). Although we find that discretionary accruals are insignificantly related to contemporaneous stock returns, we uncover that income‐increasing discretionary accruals of GAAP‐complying growth firms are significantly and positively related to contemporaneous stock returns. Furthermore, we find that this positive effect is stronger among firms with better corporate governance mechanisms, such as Board of Directors Independence, Audit Committee Independence and Large Shareholders’ Ownership. In addition to contemporaneous stock returns, we also find similar results with the future increase in dividends. Our findings are consistent with the argument that corporate governance can enhance the signalling effect of reported earnings of GAAP‐complying growth firms.     

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.     

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.     

Disclosure of GAAP line items in earnings announcements

We provide new evidence on the disclosure in earnings announcements of financial statement line items prepared under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). First, we investigate the circumstances that might provide disincentives generally for GAAP line item disclosures. We find that managers who regularly intervene in the earnings reporting process limit disclosures at the aggregate level and in each of the financial statements so as to more effectively guide investor attention to summary financial information. Specifically, this disclosure behavior obtains when managers habitually cater to market expectations, engage in income smoothing, or use discretionary accruals to improve earnings informativeness. Second, we predict and find that the specific GAAP line items that firms choose to disclose are determined by the differential informational demands of their economic environment, consistent with incentives to facilitate investor valuation. However, these valuation-related disclosure incentives are muted when managers habitually intervene in the earnings reporting process.     

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.     

German Reporting Practices: An Analysis of Reconciliations from German Commercial Code to IFRS or US GAAP

This paper presents the results of research analyzing reconciliations of net income and stockholders’ equity from reports prepared according to Germany's Commercial Code (HGB) to either International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP). We describe the distribution of the reconciling items and assess their value relevance to firm market values 3 months after the financial statement date. The work helps to identify many issues not apparent from research that focuses only on promulgated accounting standards. Among other things, the research presented in this paper demonstrates that, when reconciling to IFRS or US GAAP, German companies must reverse significant software and film licensing revenue. Other areas of significant difference, not surprisingly, show greater conservatism in reporting under HGB than IFRS or US GAAP, particularly in asset capitalizations and write-offs as well as in accruals of provisions and reserves. The latter category is value relevant to the firms’ market values after controlling for all other categories of reconciling items from HGB to either IFRS or US GAAP, indicating that German markets value these companies’ provisions and accruals under the German reporting system.     

IFRS and U.S. GAAP: Assessing the impact of reporting incentives on firm restatements in foreign and U.S. markets

This study examines the impact of reporting incentives on firm restatements in foreign and U.S. markets. We investigate whether financial reporting, using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) results in quality disclosures, given differences in institutional and market forces. This study examines the quality of financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS and U.S. GAAP by concentrating on firm restatements as a measure of earnings management. Our results indicate that there is no significant difference in the value of restatements due to differences in accounting standards when the rule of law is high in the international market. Furthermore, firms with better law enforcement and higher traditions of law and order, tend to have smaller restatement amounts or less earnings manipulation. This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the quality of financial information prepared under IFRS and its dependency on the institutional factors and market forces of a country.     

Differential levels of disclosure and the earnings-return association: evidence from foreign registrants in the United States

Foreign companies listing on U.S. exchanges are required to report financial information under U.S. GAAP on form 20-F using either Item 17 or Item 18 disclosure rules. These two disclosure rules differ in that Item 17 allows many exemptions from U.S. GAAP, while Item 18 requires disclosure of all financial information in accordance with U.S. GAAP. This study examines the differential earnings-return association between Item 17 and Item 18 filers.We find significantly higher earnings-return associations for Item 18 filers than for Item 17 filers. While the earnings-return association of Item 18 foreign firms is not different from that of matched U.S. firms (which fundamentally use Item 18 rules), the earnings-return association of Item 17 foreign firms is significantly lower than that of matched U.S. firms. Overall, the results are consistent with the idea that higher levels of disclosure may be related to lower discount rates and higher earnings response coefficients (ERCs).     

Flexibility in cash-flow classification under IFRS: determinants and consequences

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) allow managers flexibility in classifying interest paid, interest received, and dividends received within operating, investing, or financing activities within the statement of cash flows. In contrast, U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requires these items to be classified as operating cash flows (OCF). Studying IFRS-reporting firms in 13 European countries, we document firms’ cash-flow classification choices vary, with about 76, 60, and 57% of our sample classifying interest paid, interest received, and dividends received, respectively, in OCF. Reported OCF under IFRS tends to exceed what would be reported under U.S. GAAP. We find the main determinants of OCF-enhancing classification choices are capital market incentives and other firm characteristics, including greater likelihood of financial distress, higher leverage, and accessing equity markets more frequently. In analyzing the consequences of reporting flexibility, we find some evidence that the market’s assessment of the persistence of operating cash flows and accruals varies with the firm’s classification choices and the results of certain OCF prediction models are sensitive to classification choices.     

Impact of IFRS in New Zealand on Accounts and Earnings Quality

The impact of the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on the accounts and the quality of earnings of New Zealand firms is examined. Our analysis of IFRS adjustments for the last period under pre‐IFRS NZ Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) reveals that total assets, total liabilities and net profit were significantly higher under IFRS than under pre‐IFRS GAAP. Profit and equity under IFRS were increased by adjustments for goodwill and other intangibles and investment property, and decreased by adjustments for employee benefits and share‐based payments. Using data for 2002–2009, we find that absolute discretionary accruals were significantly higher under IFRS than under pre‐IFRS NZ GAAP, suggesting lower earnings quality under IFRS than under pre‐IFRS NZ GAAP. However, we find no significant differences in signed discretionary accruals and the ability of earnings to predict one‐year‐ahead cash flows between pre‐IFRS NZ GAAP and IFRS. These results are consistent across alternative measures of accruals quality, sample selection and whether firms elected to adopt IFRS in 2005 rather than comply with them in 2007.     

How Representative Are Firms That Are Cross‐Listed in the United States? An Analysis of Accounting Quality

We provide evidence on the characteristics of local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings for firms cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges relative to a matched sample of foreign firms currently not cross‐listing in the United States to investigate whether U.S. listing is associated with differences in accounting data reported in local markets. We find that cross‐listed firms differ in terms of the time‐series properties of earnings and accruals, and the degree of association between accounting data and share prices. Cross‐listed firms appear to be less aggressive in terms of earnings management and report accounting data that are more conservative, take account of bad news in a more timely manner, and are more strongly associated with share price. Furthermore, the differences appear to result partially from changes around cross‐listing and partially from differences in accounting quality before listing. We do not observe a similar pattern for firms cross‐listed on other non‐U.S. exchanges or on the U.S. over‐the‐counter market, suggesting a unique quality to cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges.     

The use of International Accounting Standards terminology, a survey of IAS compliance disclosure

This study examined where and how companies that purport to be using International Accounting Standards (IAS) are referring to IAS in their financial statements. Virtually all firms surveyed referred to IAS in the footnotes but referred to IAS in the audit report just under 50 percent of the time. The largest group of companies uses a combination of home-country and IAS standards. A significant number of firms report the use of IAS standards with exceptions. The majority of these firms do not discuss the dollar impact of those exceptions. Referencing IAS with home country standards or exceptions reduces comparability and transparency of financial statements. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) is referenced as the source of IAS in about half of the cases. Failure to reference the IASC as the source of IAS may result in ambiguity concerning what IAS means     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Value relevance of accounting information: Evidence from an emerging market

Without making any distinction of the applicable accounting standards, this paper investigates, firstly, the value relevance of accounting information from 1999 to 2012 in different segments of the Chinese stock market. This investigation includes A-shares, prepared under Chinese Accounting Standards (CAS) for domestic firms; B-shares, prepared under either the International Accounting Standards (IAS) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for both domestic and overseas firms; and H-shares prepared under either the IAS or Hong Kong GAAP for Hong Kong and overseas firms. Then, the paper examines whether or not the converged IFRS with CAS, applicable from 2007 onwards, is more value relevant when compared with prior to the 2007's standards (CAS, IAS, Hong Kong GAAP for A-share, B-share, and H-share markets, respectively). Based on 34,020 firm-year observations and after controlling for industry- and year-fixed effects, the findings suggest that accounting information is value relevant with A- and B-share markets, while it is partially relevant with the H-share market. The paper finds that the converged IFRS with CAS is more value relevant in A-shares and B-shares and it is partially more value relevant with the H-share market. These findings have implications for both policymakers and investors since they provide further empirical evidence for the current policy procedure which harmonizes local GAAP with IFRS.     

Market perceptions of discretionary accruals by debt renegotiating firms during economic downturn

This study addresses how a stock market prices earnings components around a sudden and severe economic downturn. In particular, the study examines the market valuation of discretionary accruals for debt renegotiating Malaysian firms during the Asian financial crisis. Our analysis shows that negative discretionary accruals for debt renegotiating firms are associated with higher market values of equity and are not related to the firms' future earnings. These findings are consistent with investors placing a positive value on the probability that negative accruals increase the likelihood that concessions can be extracted from lenders during renegotiation. In contrast, discretionary accruals for a control sample of non-debt renegotiating firms are not significantly associated with stock prices but are positively associated with future earnings.