Privacy in E-Commerce: Development of Reporting Standards, Disclosure, and Assurance Services in an Unregulated Market

Government regulation of financial reporting by publicly listed firms, coupled with a punitive regime for violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), has been in place in the United States for seven decades. Whether this regime is effective or useful is an open question, especially in the absence of data on the behavior of unregulated economies. Privacy disclosure in e‐commerce is essentially an unregulated environment with some parallels to financial disclosure. A study of privacy standards, disclosures practices, and demand for audits can help accountants and security regulators project the consequences of a competitive regime sans regulation for accounting standards, disclosure and audit practices. In this article we set up a framework for such a study, gather data from the field, and analyze privacy standards, privacy disclosure practices, and the effectiveness of opt‐out practices of 100 high‐traffic e‐commerce Web sites. We observe four diverse sets of privacy standards (TRUSTe, BBB Online, WebTrust, and PWC Privacy) competing in this market, attracting clienteles of their own as reflected in privacy policies and the disclosure of such policies. With a few exceptions, actual disclosure and opt‐out practices correspond reasonably well to stated policies in e‐commerce. There is little evidence that the prevailing competitive regime induces a race to the bottom with respect to privacy standards and disclosures. We explore the implications of these results for the consequences of a competitive regime for regulation of financial reporting.     

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.     

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.     

Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy

In this paper we present an index designed to capture differences between countries in relation to the institutional setting for financial reporting, specifically the auditing of financial statements and the enforcement of compliance with each country's accounting standards. The use of a common set of standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) aims, in broad terms, to promote the comparability and transparency of financial statements and to improve the quality of financial reporting. However, the effectiveness of IFRS adoption may be hampered by differences, across countries, in the institutional setting in which financial reporting occurs. Studies of outcomes from adopting IFRS use a range of legal system proxies to capture these country differences, but the proxies are deficient in that they seldom focus explicitly on factors that affect how compliance with accounting standards is promoted through external audit and the activities of independent enforcement bodies. To address this deficiency, we calculate measures of the quality of the public company auditors’ working environment (AUDIT) and the degree of accounting enforcement activity (ENFORCE) by independent enforcement bodies. We do this for 51 countries for each of the years 2002, 2005 and 2008, using publicly available data provided by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the World Bank and the national securities regulators. Preliminary tests suggest our indices have additional explanatory power (over more general legal proxies) for country‐level measures of economic and market activity, financial transparency and earnings management. We expect they will prove useful to researchers and other interested parties who require country‐level measures that focus on the degree of enforcement of financial reporting practices.     

International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality

We examine whether application of International Accounting Standards (IAS) is associated with higher accounting quality. The application of IAS reflects combined effects of features of the financial reporting system, including standards, their interpretation, enforcement, and litigation. We find that firms applying IAS from 21 countries generally evidence less earnings management, more timely loss recognition, and more value relevance of accounting amounts than do matched sample firms applying non‐U.S. domestic standards. Differences in accounting quality between the two groups of firms in the period before the IAS firms adopt IAS do not account for the postadoption differences. Firms applying IAS generally evidence an improvement in accounting quality between the pre‐ and postadoption periods. Although we cannot be sure our findings are attributable to the change in the financial reporting system rather than to changes in firms' incentives and the economic environment, we include research design features to mitigate effects of both.     

Transfer Pricing Practices and Regulatory Actions in the U.S. and U.K.: A Cross-Country Comparison and Analysis

With the continued globalization of world markets, transfer pricing has become one of the dominant sources of controversy in international taxation. Cross-country differences in transfer pricing practices and regulations present challenges to taxing authorities and multinational enterprises (MEs). In the last two decades, tax authorities in the United States (U.S.) and other countries have brought major court cases against MEs accused of underpayment of taxes through transfer pricing practices. This paper discusses transfer pricing practices, regulatory agencies, penalties related to violations, and proper documentation required in the U.S. and one of its major trading partners, the United Kingdom (U.K.). The paper also examines the acceptable valuation methods allowed as a surrogate for arm's-length transactions as established by the country's regulatory agency. Finally, the paper discusses the similarities and differences between the major court cases related to transfer pricing in the two countries.     

How Does the Corporate World Cope with Mega‐Terrorism? Puzzling Evidence from Terrorism Insurance Markets

Terrorist attacks that have succeeded abroad since 2001, as well as others that were prevented, indicate that the threat of a large‐scale attack is real and will be with us for a long time. Focusing on the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, this article analyzes the role that insurance can play in providing commercial enterprises with financial protection against the economic consequences of major terrorist attacks. The article begins by explaining the design and key features of terrorism insurance programs operating today in each of the three countries (TRIA in the U.S., Pool Re in the U.K., and Extremus in Germany). The authors then provide a detailed comparative analysis of the evolution of prices and take‐up rates (based on as yet unpublished data), with particular attention to financial institutions. For those who think the U.S. is the most likely target for mega‐terrorism, the findings are somewhat puzzling. On average, for example, companies in the U.S. do not pay even half as much for comparable coverage under TRIA as companies pay in Germany under Extremus, which raises the questions: Is terrorism coverage under the U.S. insurance program now drastically underpriced? If so, what would be the likely consequences of another large‐scale attack in the U.S.? On the demand side, the authors observe a dramatic increase in take‐up rates in the U.S. since 2003, revealing increased corporate concern. By contrast, the market penetration in Germany remains remarkably low. A better understanding of these programs and of the recent evolution of terrorism insurance markets in the U.S. and Europe should help corporate and government decision makers develop more effective protection against the economic consequences of mega‐terrorism.     

The Influence of Country‐ and Firm‐level Governance on Financial Reporting Quality: Revisiting the Evidence

This paper examines how firm‐level governance and country‐level governance interplay in shaping financial reporting quality. Using IFRS adoption as a source of variation in firms’ reporting discretion, and a large sample of European firms that mandatorily switch to the new set of standards, we find that in countries with low enforcement and weak oversight over financial reporting, only firms with strong board‐level corporate governance mechanisms experience an increase in financial reporting quality, consistent with firm‐ and country‐level governance mechanisms being substitutes. However, in countries with high enforcement and strict oversight over financial reporting, firms with either strong or weak board‐level governance mechanisms experience an increase in financial reporting quality, even if the increase is larger for the former group. Overall, our findings indicate that in the debate about the effects of governance on the quality of financial reporting, it is important to consider both country‐ and firm‐level corporate governance mechanisms.     

IFRS adoption in Spain and the United Kingdom: Effects on accounting numbers and relevance

This paper examines the quantitative impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial reporting issued by first-time adopters. It analyses whether relevance of financial information is higher under IFRS than the information provided in financial statements prepared under local GAAP when investors have to make decisions in the capital markets. Both studies compare results in Spain and in the United Kingdom, whose accounting systems have been traditionally considered in opposite groups. The results of the research reveal that the quantitative impact is significant in both countries and, against what we expected, it is higher in the United Kingdom. We also observe that IFRS have negative effect on the relevance of financial reporting in both countries, although this effect has only been significant in Spain.     

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.     

Accounting Reforms in China: Cultural Constraints on Implementation and Development

There is considerable theory and evidence to suggest that culture is an important environmental variable influencing the development of accounting systems internationally. According to the Hofstede (1980) and Gray (1988) cultural models, China's accounting development and practice should be in the cluster that supports statutory control, uniform practices, a conservative measurement approach and secrecy in disclosure. A uniform and rigid system of financial reporting has been practised for decades in the People's Republic of China under the centrally controlled economy. The accounting reforms launched since the 1980s aim to establish a new framework for regulating financial reporting which is adaptable to China's recently emerged socialist market economy. The adoption of accounting standards in the later phases of the reforms marks a dramatic turning point in China's accounting history towards a more international Anglo-Saxon orientation in financial reporting. Based on an analysis of the authority for accounting systems, the accounting profession and accounting measurement and disclosure in China, it is argued that this development will be constrained by the influence of China's culture and its accounting subculture. While financial reporting will be governed by accounting standards, their development and enforcement will remain a governmental and legalistic function. Accountants will continue to rely heavily on detailed technical rules. This mixed orientation will constitute China's unique national identity in terms of its accounting and financial reporting system.     

The Impact of Financial Accounting Practices on the Measurement of Profit and Equity: Australia Versus the United States

The purpose of this paper is to make a quantitative comparative analysis of differences between Australian financial reporting practices and U.S. GAAP. The empirical data consist of Form 20-F filings for thirteen Australian incorporated companies for the period 1985–93. Based on prior research, there is a test of the hypothesis that U.S. GAAP is more conservative than Australian financial reporting practice. The results of the empirical analysis offer little support for this hypothesis in the context of the reporting of profit. However, the hypothesis is supported for the reporting of shareholders’ equity. The most frequent and material differences in profits relate to asset measurement, equity consolidation and accounting for intangible assets. Generalizations relating to differences in shareholders’ equity are more difficult to make.     

The Search for Standard Costing in the United States and Britain

This article describes the relationship between the understanding and practice of standard costing in both the U.S. and the U.K. and discusses the development of specific practices in the immediate post‐World War II period. Based on a detailed review of the post‐war literature, the authors conclude that the quantity and quality of standard costing and related scientific management practices (time study, variance analysis, etc.) reached a level in practice that many accounting historians have felt should have been achieved at an earlier point in time. Another principal finding is that standard costing, initially promulgated in the late 1910s, continued to develop in both the U.S. and the U.K. in evolutionary fashion into the late 1940s and 1950s, a finding which demonstrates that Britain was not as far behind America in terms of its standard costing practices as has been commonly believed. The article also explicates the relatively minor impact of the Anglo‐American Council on Productivity, sponsor of sixty‐six post‐war visitations over a four‐year period by British groups of employers, trade unionists and professionals, to study American industrial methods, including standard costing.     

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.     

Advances in the Financial Reporting of Mexican Banks: An Evaluation of Post-Devaluation Reporting Practices

In 1994, Mexico underwent a severe peso devaluation. Thereafter, the country’s financial system experienced severe financial stress as loan defaults forced the government to undertake a program to rescue the country’s banks and obtain international financial assistance. One of the measures involved the reformulation of the financial reporting principles used by the country’s banks. The standards, which are contained in the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission’s Circular 1343 (1997), were designed to provide Mexican banks with a comprehensive set of financial reporting standards and to bring the financial reporting practices of Mexican financial institutions closer to international standards. However, while the standards contain several improvements in the fundamental aspects of financial reporting for Mexican banks, they lack some important measurement and disclosure provisions contained in international standards. Given this tendency, this paper examines the post-devaluation (1998) financial reporting practices of Mexican banks. Emphasis is placed on comparing the reporting practices contained in the banks’ 1998 financial statements with the requirements of Circular 1343, the standards published by the Mexican Institute of Public Accountants (MIPA), International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) standards, and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rules.     

Is ERM Legally Required? Yes for Financial and Governmental Institutions,No for Private Enterprises

We examine whether enterprise risk management (ERM) is legally required for financial institutions (e.g., banks, securities brokerage firms, insurance, hedge funds and mutual funds), government entities, publicly traded companies, and private enterprises. We find that ERM is legally required for U.S. financial institutions and for some government‐sponsored enterprises. Legally required means required by U.S. statutes, federal case law, or U.S. regulatory agencies (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]). ERM is an important factor for rating organizations (e.g., Standard & Poor's [S&P]), but not legally required. We found no U.S. statutes or federal court cases requiring an ERM framework for private enterprises, although ERM is accepted as a value‐contributing best practice, and elements of ERM are practiced by some private enterprises. For publically traded companies, elements of ERM are required by federal statute, by the SEC, and by S&P. We suggest that if a private enterprise is sued in U.S. federal court alleging breach of a legal duty to practice ERM, the suit will likely be dismissed. We trace the development of ERM from a traditional risk management (TRM) base. Fortunately, ERM is recognized as a value‐contributing best practice in corporate governance even when legal standards do not require it.     

Economic policy uncertainty and analyst behaviours: Evidence from the United Kingdom

This paper documents that both domestic and cross-country economic policy uncertainty have significant impacts on the behaviours of domestic analysts in the United Kingdom. Specifically, domestic economic policy uncertainty has significant negative impacts on analyst earnings forecast accuracy, dispersion, and both analyst recommendation upgrades and downgrades, whereas it has no significant impact on analyst coverage in the United Kingdom. An industry analysis shows that the effects of policy uncertainties on analyst behaviours vary across industries. Moreover, European and global economic policy uncertainty have similar cross-country impacts as U.K. policy uncertainty on analyst behaviours in the United Kingdom, whereas U.S. policy uncertainty exhibits different impacts. This study presents novel and comprehensive evidence of the impacts of policy uncertainty on an important information intermediary that has significant influences on capital market efficiency, providing practical implications for investors, analysts, corporate managers, and policy makers.     

Does the requirement of an engagement partner signature improve financial analysts’ information environment in the United Kingdom?

I investigate the effect of requiring the audit engagement partner (EP) to sign the audit report on financial analysts’ information environment in the United Kingdom (U.K.). To control for the effect of confounding concurrent events, I use a control sample of firms listed in France, Germany, and the Netherlands that had already implemented the EP signature requirement at least 2 years prior to the adoption date in the U.K. I find that, relative to this control sample, U.K. firms experienced a significant increase in analyst following and a significant decrease in analysts’ absolute forecast errors and forecast dispersion from a 2-year pre- to 2-year post-signature period. The results are robust to a battery of sensitivity tests such as varying both pre- and post-signature windows and using different measurements of outcome variables. In general, my findings indicate that adopting the EP signature requirement leads to the improvement in analysts’ information environment in the U.K., and this improvement is partially influenced by an improvement in audit quality. These results provide timely ex-ante empirical evidence to the ongoing debate over whether passing a similar requirement in the U.S., proposed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, benefits investors and other financial statement users.     

Corporate domicile and average effective tax rates: The cases of Canada,Japan, the United Kingdom,and the United States

We use financial statement information to estimate three alterantive average effective tax rates for firms domiciled in Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States during the period 1982 to 1991. While many of the firms we examine operate worldwide, we use the termdomicile to refer to the legal residence or site of incorporation of the parent company. Our objective is to determine themarginal impact of a company's domicile on its worldwide tax burden, with controls for industry and year. We find both among domestic-only companies and among multinational companies the domiciles are consistently ranked in descending order by average effective tax rates as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. In comparing domestic-only companies and multinationals domiciled in the same jurisdiction, only U.S. multinationals consistently face a greater tax burden than their domestic counterparts.     

Do Strict Regulators Increase the Transparency of Banks?

We investigate the role that regulatory strictness plays on the enforcement of financial reporting transparency in the U.S. banking industry. Using a novel measure of regulatory strictness in the enforcement of capital adequacy, we show that strict regulators are more likely to enforce restatements of banks' call reports. Further, we find that the effect of regulatory strictness on accounting enforcement is strongest in periods leading up to economic downturns and for banks with riskier asset portfolios. Overall, the results from our study indicate that regulatory oversight plays an important role in enforcing financial reporting transparency, particularly in periods leading up to economic crises. We interpret this evidence as inconsistent with the idea that strict bank regulators put significant weight on concerns about the potential destabilizing effects of accounting transparency.