Cross-market information transfers of ADR firms: An investigation of emerging market economies

Level II and III ADRs permit issuers to be listed on the major U.S. exchanges with the stipulation that they comply with extensive SEC disclosure requirements. Foreign private issuers are compelled to file a set of audited financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, or alternatively, IFRS or Home Country Accounting Principles with attendant reconciliation to U.S. GAAP prior to 2008. Although the Form 20-F reconciliation is discontinued in 2008 for IFRS filers, non-U.S. issuers are required to satisfy other Form 20-F stipulations such as expanded Item 17 and Item 18 disclosures. We conjecture that non-U.S. firms choosing to be listed on the major U.S. exchanges will incur the added costs associated with the supplemental disclosure requirements in order to attract sufficient investor attention as to have the disclosures impounded in the home country equity share price in the manner described by Fishman et al. (1989). Because a prominent attribute of ADR firms is that they benefit from multiple-market trading, we investigate whether the Form 20-F disclosure cross-market information transfers are associated with emerging market economy status. We employ models of the cross-market ADR and equity security share returns and trading volume controlling for the emerging economy status and incremental firm-specific SEC Form 20-F accounting principles disclosures. Preliminary results indicate that (1) U.S. listed ADR firms from emerging economies experience greater cross-market information transfers associated with the SEC Form 20-F filing, and (2) that the increased cross-market information transfers associated with the SEC Form 20-F filing are proportional to the difference in quality of accounting principles employed for home country reporting purposes vis-à-vis the accounting principles employed for SEC Form 20-F reporting purposes. Results are consistent with a feedback process through which the new information disclosed by the SEC Form 20-F reporting requirements in the ADR market attenuates the price discovery process in the home country equity market when the difference in information environment quality is large.     

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.     

Do earnings reported under IFRS tell us more about future earnings and cash flows?

We contribute to the debate about the relative benefits and costs of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption by examining whether earnings persistence and the association between current accounting earnings and future cash flows differ for firms reporting under IFRS versus firms reporting under United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) and firms reporting under non-U.S. domestic accounting standards (DAS). Using samples comprised of 58,832 firm-year observations drawn from 33 countries from 2002 through 2008, we find that positive earnings reported under IFRS are no more or less persistent than earnings reported under U.S. GAAP but losses reported under IFRS are less persistent than losses reported under U.S. GAAP. Moreover, we find that earnings reported under IFRS are no more or less persistent and are no more or less associated with future cash flows than earnings reported under non-U.S. DAS. However, we find that earnings reported under U.S. GAAP are more closely associated with future cash flows than earnings reported under IFRS. This is important if a key role of reported earnings is to help investors form expectations about future cash flows. These results should be of interest to academics and standard-setters as they debate the merits of transitioning to IFRS, and to parties who use reported earnings to form expectations about future earnings and cash flows.     

International financial reporting standards and experts' perceptions of disclosure quality

From 2005, over 7,000 listed firms in the European Union and many more around the world are required to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The introduction of a uniform accounting regime is expected to ensure greater comparability and transparency of financial reporting around the world. However, recent research has questioned the quality of financial statements prepared under IFRS standards, particularly in the presence of weak enforcement mechanisms and adverse reporting incentives ( Ball et al. , 2003 ). In this paper, we assess the quality of the financial statements of Austrian, German and Swiss firms which have already adopted internationally recognized standards (IFRS or U.S. GAAP). The study makes use of available disclosure quality scores extracted from detailed analyses of annual reports by reputed accounting scholars ('experts'). This work complements other contemporary research on the quality of IFRS financial statements where the properties of earnings are used as an evaluation metric ( Barth et al. , 2005 ). Our evidence shows that disclosure quality has increased significantly under IFRS in the three European countries we analyse. This result holds not only for firms which have voluntarily adopted IFRS or U.S. GAAP, but also for firms which mandatorily adopted such standards in response to the requirements of specific stock market segments. Although we cannot establish direct causality due to the inherent self-selection issues for most of our sample firms, the evidence shows that the quality of financial reports has increased significantly with the adoption of IFRS.     

The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic

There has been considerable discussion about the U.S. reporting standards becoming less rules based, similar to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). One proposed advantage of a change to IFRS is increased comparability across multinational and non-U.S. companies. Additionally, some believe that IFRS afford greater flexibility in its principles, thereby enabling firms’ accounting choices to better reflect the true economic nature of any given transaction (FASB, 2002; SEC, 2003). With fewer rules, both financial statement preparers and auditors would be expected to adjust to having more options with regards to financial reporting. However, some proposed changes leave the option open to implement IFRS (or other principles-based standards) in ways that still follow rules in U.S. GAAP. This paper investigates whether prior year accounting treatments influence the judgment for current year treatments when one way to implement the standard is to follow the prior year treatment. We find that some auditors fixate on prior year scenarios and judgments, even if the current year scenario and applicable accounting standards are different. We find that holding auditors accountable for their decision making process reduces the likelihood of sticking with the prior year treatment most notably when the prior year standards were U.S. GAAP.     

Eliminating the 20-F reconciliation from IFRS to U.S. GAAP: Short-term and long-term liquidity effects

This paper examines the effects of the SEC’s 2008 decision to no longer require foreign private issuers using IFRS and trading on U.S. exchanges to reconcile their financial statements to U.S. GAAP. Extant research has found conflicting results using short event windows, while studies using longer event windows have found limited capital market impact from eliminating the reconciliation. Motivated by the SEC’s interest in understanding how disclosure rules impact market liquidity, we examine changes in effective bid-ask spreads, the price impact of trades, and quoted depth around 20-F filing dates for a sample of foreign private issuers. We find that effective spreads increase more around 20-F filing dates for filers using IFRS than for filers using U.S. GAAP, suggesting the 20-F report is more informative for filers using IFRS. We then find, in a subsample of filers using IFRS, that the increase in effective spreads for IFRS firms around 20-F filing dates is directly related to the magnitude of differences in book values between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. In sum, our results suggest a loss of useful information after the SEC’s rule change.     

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.     

Earnings changes associated with relaxing the reconciliation requirement in non-U.S. firms’ SEC filings

We investigate the changes in earnings information content and earnings attributes for non-U.S. firms listed in U.S. equity markets following the 2007 relaxation of the SEC requirement to reconcile IFRS earnings and stockholders’ equity to U.S. GAAP in annual regulatory filings. We analyze a sample of non-U.S. firms listed on U.S. exchanges from 2005 to 2008 that use IFRS, and compare them to non-U.S. firms that continue to use domestic GAAP or U.S. GAAP. Prior literature finds no changes in informativeness following the regulatory change for IFRS-using firms. However, when we partition the IFRS-using firms into two groups based on their history of providing reconciliation information, we find that firms which previously provided more information about the differences between their reporting GAAP and U.S. GAAP had significant increases in the information content of their earnings. In contrast, there is no change in earnings informativeness for firms that provided less informative reconciliations. We regard the reconciliation informativeness as a proxy for firms’ efforts to provide more informative disclosures, which is driven by their disclosure incentives. We also document that the change in the information content of earnings for more informative reconcilers was contemporaneous with a change in earnings attributes for these firms. Consistent with no change in earnings informativeness for less informative reconcilers, there is little change in their earnings attributes. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating disclosure incentives when examining the consequences of a regulatory change.     

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.     

Escape from New York: The market impact of loosening disclosure requirements

We examine the first significant deregulation of U.S. disclosure requirements since the passage of the 1933/1934 Exchange and Securities Acts: the 2007 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 12h-6. Rule 12h-6 has made it easier for foreign firms to deregister with the SEC and thereby terminate their U.S. disclosure obligations. We show that the market reacted negatively to the announcement by the SEC that firms from countries with weak disclosure and governance regimes could more easily opt out of the stringent U.S. reporting and legal environment. We also find that since the rule's passage, an unprecedented number of firms have deregistered, and these firms often had been previous targets of U.S. class action securities lawsuits or SEC enforcement actions. Our findings suggest that shareholders of non-U.S firms place significant value on U.S. securities regulations, especially when the home country investor protections are weak.     

THE IMPACT OF U.S. REQUIREMENTS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES ON THE STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF NON-U.S. AUDIT COMMITTEES

Many non-U.S. national stock exchanges have amended their listing standards to require audit committees during the last two decades, while U.S. national stock exchanges have recently amended their listing standards in response to recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees (BRC). These new listing requirements for U.S. registrants (SEC Form 10-K filers) provide an opportunity to contrast and examine requirements for audit committee structure and membership of non-U.S. registrants (SEC Form 20-F filers). Recognizing that the International Accounting Standards Board has identified a “core” set of basic accounting standards in international filings accentuates the need to have uniform requirements for audit committees. This paper argues that requirements for audit committees should be consistent to improve financial reporting in a global securities marketplace. Results suggest that boards of directors and their audit committees of non-U.S. sample firms before the enactment of the U.S. requirements will need to exhibit greater alignment of their audit committee’s structure and composition with the recent U.S. requirements for audit committees.     

Using Form 20-F reconciliations to internationalize an accounting course

Accounting courses and textbooks in the United States focus on US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As a result, US accounting students have little exposure to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and to differences between these standards and US GAAP. To familiarize students with the differences between IFRS and US GAAP, accounting instructors can develop assignments based upon the reconciliation of IFRS to US GAAP net income included in Form 20-F, the annual document submitted to the SEC by non-US firms. The course assignment described in this paper provides students with a “road map” of the differences underlying specific company financial reporting, and helps instructors identify where these differences occur. The assignment represents an innovative way of integrating international financial reporting standards and SEC reporting requirements into a higher level undergraduate or graduate accounting course.     

Has Adoption of IFRS Increased Non–North American Institutional Investment in the Canadian Stock Markets?

We investigate whether non–North American (non‐NA) institutional investment in firms listed on the Canadian stock markets increased between the pre‐ and post‐IFRS adoption periods relative to such investment in firms listed on the U.S. stock markets. Prior to IFRS adoption, Canada had high‐quality financial reporting standards that were similar to the U.S. standards. As consequences of IFRS adoption, Canadian financial statements became more comparable with European and other IFRS country financial statements and less comparable with neighboring U.S. financial statements. Thus, a question of interest is whether the enhanced comparability with non‐NA companies was beneficial in terms of attracting non‐NA investment to Canadian companies versus U.S. companies. We find that there was no significant change in non‐NA institutional investment in Canadian firms relative to U.S. firms for the very largest (fifth quintile) and for smaller (first, second, and third quintiles) Canadian companies. However, intermediate‐sized Canadian companies in the fourth size quintile lost non‐NA institutional investment relative to their U.S. peer companies, suggesting that non‐NA investors cared more about comparability with U.S. peer companies than non‐NA peer companies for companies in this size quintile.     

Does accounting quality change following a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS? Evidence from Germany

This study examines whether accounting quality changed following a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS. Using a sample of German high tech firms that transitioned to IFRS from U.S. GAAP in 2005, we find that accounting numbers under IFRS generally exhibit more earnings management, less timely loss recognition, and less value relevance compared to those under U.S. GAAP. In addition, after analyzing the accounting quality of firms that applied IFRS throughout the entire sample period, we find that, for the metrics suggesting a decline in accounting quality for both groups of firms, the change is significantly more pronounced for firms switching to IFRS from U.S. GAAP. Overall, our findings indicate that the application of U.S. GAAP generally resulted in higher accounting quality than application of IFRS, and a transition from U.S. GAAP to IFRS reduced accounting quality. Our findings provide the first evidence on the potential consequences of a switch from U.S. GAAP to IFRS.     

What Drives Quality of Firm Risk Disclosure? : The Impact of a National Disclosure Standard and Reporting Incentives under IFRS

This paper examines the impact of a detailed national disclosure standard on the quality of firms' overall risk reviews under IFRS. We use data from a sample of listed Finnish firms around the introduction of the standard and find that national regulatory bodies have been able to raise the quality of risk disclosure on several dimensions even under IFRS. We find increases in the quantity of risk disclosure with more extensive and more comprehensive information. We do not, however, find a corresponding increase in quantitative disclosures and therefore there is some question regarding the influence of the standard on the substance of the risk information provided. In addition to the coercive effect of the standard, several important reporting incentives, such as firm size, profitability, and foreign listing status are documented. We also find some evidence that the impact of the standard on quality is more pronounced among less profitable firms. Additional findings are that larger firms and firms reporting under the requirements of the SEC disclose more quantitative risk information, and that the quality improvements are permanent in the subsequent years. The findings have implications for standard-setters evaluating different strategies with the aim to increase the quality of the narratives in annual reports.     

Value Relevance of Environmental Provisions Pre‐ and Post‐IFRS

The purpose of this paper is to compare the value relevance of environmental provisions as recorded under Canadian/U.S. GAAP and IFRS accounting frameworks with consideration of the impact of voluntarily issuing stand‐alone sustainability reports. The value relevance of environmental provisions is tested using a modified Ohlson (1995) model. We exploit IFRS reconciliations as a quasi‐experimental setting to conduct this comparison. Results indicate that environmental provisions recorded under either framework only act as liabilities for oil and gas firms that release stand‐alone sustainability reports. For other firms in the oil and gas industry, and the mining industry, the liability nature of these provisions appears to be discounted by the market. Furthermore, for firms in the oil and gas industry that do not have stand‐alone CSR reports, provisions appear to be interpreted by the market as a costly signal about future growth. Instead of downwardly affecting market values, this information is associated with higher market values. In terms of the transition to IFRS, we find that, while the IFRS provisions are significantly higher than under former GAAP, they do not improve value relevance for investors. Accounting standard setters should consider examining the changes in the current standards from the original Canadian environmental provision reporting requirements under Capital Assets section 3060.39, as it was rightfully shown to be a relevant proxy for unbooked liabilities (Li and McConomy, 1999; Bewley, 2005) rather than earnings expectancy. The study builds upon prior research to examine the value of accounting standards that have gone through significant changes.     

Are financial professionals ready for IFRS?: An exploratory study

Despite a move towards convergence between principles-based International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and rules-based U.S. GAAP, and the likelihood that many foreign affiliates of U.S. firms use IFRS, little research has examined whether United States financial managers appropriately record and summarize transactions in accordance with IFRS. This paper investigates the ability of 176 U.S. financial managers to appropriately apply the revenue recognition standard under IFRS when given the relevant guidance. About half of the participants selected the U.S. GAAP answer, and only 40 percent identified the correct answer under IFRS. More experienced financial managers, and financial managers with relevant industry experience were more likely to appropriately apply the standard, but a substantial percentage of them still selected the GAAP choice rather than the correct choice under IFRS. This suggests that more IFRS training in the U.S. is needed prior to IFRS adoption.     

Are required SEC proxy disclosures about the board’s role in risk oversight substantive?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies it regulates to include disclosures about the board’s role in risk oversight in the annual proxy statement to shareholders. The SEC does not mandate specific content or actions that boards should perform as part of their risk oversight responsibilities, leaving the nature of activities and extent of those disclosures to the discretion of the reporting entity. This study examines whether these disclosures contain substantive information reflective of the effectiveness of the organization’s risk oversight. We find that organizations disclosing more specific information (but not simply more information) about board risk oversight practices are associated with firms independently assessed as having the strongest management and governance processes. These findings suggest that these firms use the discretion provided by the SEC’s disclosure rule to provide substantive and potentially value-relevant information for stakeholders about the entity’s risk management processes and board risk oversight activities.     

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.     

IFRS framework-based case study: DaimlerChrysler – Adopting IFRS accounting policies

This instructional case applies a framework-based approach to explore the concept of comparability in financial reporting and retrospective application of new accounting policies. The DaimlerChrysler (DC) case provides an opportunity for you to research key financial reporting concepts, analyze accounting policy differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, determine adjustments necessary to convert financial statements from U.S. GAAP to IFRS, and compute and discuss key ratio impacts following financial statement conversion. This case demonstrates that transitioning to IFRS is more than an accounting issue; it provides opportunities for financial restructuring (e.g., Daimler’s amendments to pension plans and its 2007 sale of Chrysler). It also illustrates the importance of professional judgment when initially adopting IFRS accounting policies. Also, despite FASB and IASB convergence efforts, you learn that most of the key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS identified in DC’s reconciliations continue today. This case helps you to: (1) develop skills to interpret and apply the requirements on first-time adoption of IFRS to a real-world setting; (2) research key differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS and their effects on the financial statements and ratios; and (3) understand significant impacts of the transition to IFRS on businesses and financial statements. Completing the case develops your critical thinking and research/technological skills.