Is it U.S. GAAP or IFRS? Understanding how R&D costs affect ratio analysis

While financial reporting standards under U.S. GAAP and IFRS are fundamentally similar, differences do exist that may affect our analysis of company financial statements. This is particularly true when comparing a U.S. company following U.S. GAAP to a firm that uses IFRS. To illustrate, we compare research and development (R&D) accounting methods under both sets of standards and illustrate how they affect the analysis of financial results of firms in a specific industry—automotive manufacturers. Our results provide insight into settings in which differences in R&D accounting may have the greatest impact on financial analysis.     

Differential reporting in Germany - A historical analysis

Based on a contingent perspective of accounting change, this paper reviews the historical development of differential reporting in Germany, by drawing on primary and secondary sources. The main objective of the paper is to shed light on the driving forces and main influential parameters that have shaped the existing differential reporting framework. This historical approach supplies interesting insights for the current discussion on differential reporting in Germany produced by the EU Regulation on the application of International Accounting Standards.     

Earnings Quality under Rules‐ versus Principles‐based Accounting Standards: A Test of the Skinner Hypothesis / LA QUALITÉ DES RÉSULTATS SELON QUE LES NORMES COMPTABLES SONT AXÉES SUR LES RÈGLES OU SUR LES PRINCIPES: VÉRIFICATION DE L'HYPOTHÈSE DE SKINNER*

We provide preliminary evidence, consistent with Skinner (1995), that Canada's relatively principles‐based GAAP yield higher accrual quality than the United States' relatively rules‐based GAAP. These results stem from a comparison of the Dechow‐Dichev (2002) measure of accrual quality for cross‐listed Canadian firms reporting under both Canadian and U.S. GAAP. However, we document lower accrual quality for Canadian firms reporting under U.S. GAAP than for U.S. firms, which are subject to stronger U.S. oversight, reporting under U.S. GAAP. The latter results suggest that stronger U.S. oversight compensates for inferior accrual quality associated with rules‐based GAAP. Consistent with the positive effect of Canada's principles‐based GAAP and the offsetting negative effect of Canada's weaker oversight, we find no overall difference in accrual quality between Canadian firms reporting under Canadian GAAP and U.S. firms reporting under U.S. GAAP. Our results imply that (1) policymakers who wish to compare the effectiveness of oversight across jurisdictions must control for the GAAP effect; and (2) accounting standard‐setters who wish to compare the effectiveness of principles‐ versus rules‐based GAAP must control for oversight strength.     

Disentangling Managers’ and Analysts’ Non‐GAAP Reporting

Researchers frequently proxy for managers’ non‐GAAP disclosures using performance metrics available through analyst forecast data providers (FDPs), such as I/B/E/S. The extent to which FDP‐provided earnings are a valid proxy for managers’ non‐GAAP reporting, however, has been debated extensively. We explore this important question by creating the first large‐sample data set of managers’ non‐GAAP earnings disclosures, which we directly compare to I/B/E/S data. Although we find a substantial overlap between the two data sets, we also find that they differ in systematic ways because I/B/E/S (1) excludes managers’ lower quality non‐GAAP numbers and (2) sometimes provides higher quality non‐GAAP measures that managers do not explicitly disclose. Our results indicate that using I/B/E/S to identify managers’ non‐GAAP disclosures significantly underestimates the aggressiveness of their reporting choices. We encourage researchers interested in managers’ non‐GAAP reporting to use our newly available data set of manager‐disclosed non‐GAAP metrics because it more accurately captures managers’ reporting choices.     

The influence of management and auditors on consolidation decisions

Historically, the decision over whether or not to consolidate was guided by bright-line rules, which outlined the minimum percentage of ownership required in a subsidiary for it to be considered controlled by a reporting entity and thus included in the consolidated financial statements (CFSs). Today, U.S. GAAP and IFRS use a principles-based approach, which is guided by the concept of control to determine whether a subsidiary is to be consolidated in the CFSs. In this context, a debate exists between managers and auditors about which subsidiaries should be consolidated. To deepen our understanding of how managers and auditors grapple with consolidation decisions, we interviewed several CFOs and audit partners to determine if they are anchored to legalistic mechanisms or if, instead, they are strategically developing ways to support the consolidation decision. Based on our interviews, we find that opportunistic transactions—criticized at the time of the rules-based approach—still exist due to the search for legalistic mechanisms that protect underlying choices influenced by economic incentives. Such results are crucial for analysts and investors to properly interpret consolidated financial performance.     

The Differential Value Relevance of S&P's Core Earnings Versus GAAP Earnings: The Role of Stock Option Expense

In 2002, Standard & Poor's (S&P) introduced Core Earnings as a proprietary, uniform earnings metric, with the goal of improving financial reporting. The distinguishing feature of Core Earnings is its consistent treatment of seven adjustments to GAAP earnings for which there is no consensus adjustment by managers and analysts. We use stock price and return data to assess whether investors perceive Core Earnings to be more value relevant than GAAP earnings. The implementation of FASB 123R changed the calculation of GAAP and Core Earnings. This change allows us to assess the role of stock option expense in the valuation of earnings numbers by partitioning the sample into pre‐ and post‐FASB 123R periods and creating consistent measures of GAAP and Core Earnings. Our price results indicate that Core Earnings is more value relevant than GAAP earnings in the pre‐period after controlling for stock option expense, and in the post‐FASB 123R periods. The price results provide empirical evidence consistent with S&P's expectation that a uniformly calculated earnings measure is a more consistent and useful indicator of current performance and future earnings.     

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.     

Effective experimental controls for research in international accounting: Further thoughts

This paper responds to recent research by Ruland et al. [Ruland, W., Shon, J., Zhou, P., 2007. Effective controls for research in international accounting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26(1), 96–116.] that addresses the effectiveness of experimental controls for research in international accounting, with focus on Ndubizu and Sanchez [Ndubizu, G.A., Sanchez, M.H., 2006. The valuation properties of earnings and book value prepared under US GAAP in Chile and IAS in Peru. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25 (2)]. We attempt to remove some misconceptions about effective experimental controls that have surfaced in the debate. We argue that theory and refined proxies alleviate many of the control issues that have surfaced in the literature.     

Pricing of Foreign GAAP Earnings in U.S. Capital Market Prior to the SEC Required Reconciliation Disclosure

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires foreign registrants to include in their annual reports on Form 20-F reconciliation to U.S. GAAP of net income, earnings per share, and shareholders' equity, if materially different. Previous research indicates that foreign firms usually file their reports with the SEC near or at the deadline, that is six months after the fiscal year-end and about three months after the earnings announcement. The purpose of this study is to examine U.S. investors' ability to interpret foreign GAAP earnings before the SEC regulated disclosure becomes publicly available. Presented empirical evidence indicates that market participants are able to infer U.S. GAAP earnings from the foreign GAAP earnings at the time of initial earnings announcements.