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.     

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.     

Bonding to the Improved Disclosure Environment in the US: Firms' Listing Choices and their Capital Market Consequences

We examine whether current disclosure requirements affect foreign firms' decisions to list on a US exchange. We document that (1) while firms from a weak disclosure environment are more likely to cross-list and either trade OTC or be placed privately, they are less likely to list on an exchange in which firms are required to comply with US GAAP, (2) exchange-listing firms receive a higher valuation than non-exchange-listing firms, and (3) exchange-listing firms domiciled in a higher disclosure regime, who incur lower costs of US GAAP compliance, generally receive a higher valuation than exchange-listing firms from a lower disclosure regime.     

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.     

International operations and voluntary disclosures by U.S.-based multinational corporations

This study uses analysts' ratings of firms' disclosures to examine how the differences between U.S. and foreign disclosure environments affects the voluntary disclosures of U.S.-based multinational corporations. We hypothesize that these different disclosure environments discourage U.S-based multinationals from releasing costly information to competitors. Examining how these differences impact U.S. MNCs' reporting may further our understanding of the relationship between voluntary disclosures and differences among countries' accounting standards. Furthermore, it may explain how convergence of mandated accounting standards might impact voluntary disclosures. Controlling for industry membership, firm size, profitability, earnings-return relations, and capital market activity, we find that U.S. firms with more extensive foreign operations tend to provide fewer voluntary disclosures. These results are most robust for informal and flexible disclosures, such as investor relations, where the findings indicate a negative relation between foreign operations and disclosure.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The positive externalities of IFRS R&D capitalization: enhanced voluntary disclosure

Studies comparing IFRS with U.S. GAAP generally focus on differences in the attributes and consequences of the recognized financial items. We, in contrast, focus on voluntary disclosure resulting from arguably the most significant difference between IFRS and GAAP: the capitalization of development costs—the “D” of R&D—required by IFRS but prohibited by GAAP. Using a sample of Israeli high-technology and science-based firms, some using IFRS and others U.S. GAAP, we document a significant externality of IFRS development cost capitalization in the form of extensive voluntary disclosure of forward?looking information on product pipeline development and its expected consequences. We show that this disclosure is value-relevant over and above the mandated financial information, including the capitalized R&D asset. We also show that the capitalized development costs (an asset) is highly significant in relation to stock prices, and enhances the relevance of the voluntary disclosures.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of foreign GAAP earnings and Form 20-F reconciliations on revisions of analysts' forecasts

A controversial area of U.S. securities regulations involves the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) financial reporting requirements for foreign firms, specifically, the necessity of providing a quantitative reconciliation to U.S. GAAP (Form 20-F). The results of earnings-returns research to date indicate that the release of foreign GAAP earnings provides important information. However, the results of earnings-returns studies using reconciled information are mixed. Instead of using an earnings-returns methodology adopted in prior research, this study utilizes analysts' revisions as a market indicator of the effect of information released in foreign GAAP earnings and the reconciled information in Form 20-F. Additionally, the study investigates the influence of four firm-specific variables in the firm's information environment—similarities of accounting systems, analyst following, difference between reconciled earnings and foreign GAAP earnings, and dispersion of analysts' expectations—on positive abnormal revision activities of financial analysts at the time of filing Form 20-F.The results indicate that the release of foreign GAAP earnings (at earnings announcement dates) and reconciled information (at the time of filing Form 20-F) contains relevant information as measured by analysts' revisions. Further, variables representing analyst following, change in reconciled earnings, and dispersion of analysts' expectations are significant in explaining the variation observed in positive abnormal revisions.     

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.     

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.     

Disclosure strategies among S&P 500 firms: Evidence on the disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures and financial statements in earnings press releases

This paper examines the prominence of non-GAAP financial measures in press releases, testing whether managers emphasize these adjusted performance measures relative to GAAP numbers in four different settings where their disclosure helps managers reach strategic earnings benchmarks on a pro forma basis when they would otherwise fall short using GAAP numbers. Moreover, this research investigates the information content of disclosures reconciling non-GAAP to GAAP earnings (and other financial statements). The data is hand collected from quarterly earnings press releases of a sample of S&P 500 firms during the 2001–2003 period. In this particular sample, the disclosure of non-GAAP financial measures is frequent. The results suggest that managers strategically give more prominence to non-GAAP measures than to GAAP figures when the GAAP earnings number falls short of a benchmark but the non-GAAP earnings number does not. This disclosure strategy may influence the perception of the firm's financial results. Furthermore, the results suggest that both the reconciliation and the non-GAAP income statement contain information useful for users.     

Does trading volume detect information content in earnings reconciliations of foreign firms?

Currently, foreign firms trading securities on U.S. markets provide periodically a quantitative reconciliation of selected financial data consistent with U.S. GAAP (hereafter referred to as reconciled information) in Form 20-F. The SEC is examining whether users believe that this reconciliation process provides additional information above that provided by the foreign GAAP earning announcement and whether this incremental information enhances usefulness for market participants. We examine whether the reconciliation affects a primary indicator of information usefulness: the trading volume of capital markets participants.We use a regression model to examine the relation between a measure of abnormal trading volume and four firm-specific variables in the firm's information environment: similarities of accounting systems, analyst following, difference between reconciled earnings and foreign GAAP earnings, and dispersion of analysts’ expectations. We find a significant relation between abnormal volume and the reconciled earnings number and between abnormal volume and the dispersion of analysts forecasts. Our findings suggest that market participants may use the 20-F reconciliation in trading decisions.     

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.     

Do short sellers anticipate late filings?

Exploiting the setting of firms that are unable to disclose timely financial reports and thus must file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the NT 10-K (Q) report, this study examines whether short sellers target firms with financial reporting weaknesses. We find that short interest increases in firms prior to the NT 10-K (Q) filing, suggesting that short sellers identify and target firms that cannot file their financial reports in a timely manner. Short selling is positively significantly related to subsequent late filing status, and is more pronounced in late filers with high newswire activity and with accelerated filing deadlines. Short selling of late filing firms is significantly negatively related to subsequent performance thereby suggesting that short sellers' trades pertinent to late filers are profitable. Overall, the results underscore a high information processing ability of short sellers in the setting of firms that exhibit financial reporting deficiencies.