Research in Accounting Regulation最新文献

In this paper, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature are synthesized in annotated bibliography form. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. Papers in top accounting outlets such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Research in Accounting Regulation and Review of Accounting Studies are included. Threads in the 2017 literature included general regulatory accounting issues, general financial reporting issues, examinations of the impact of specific guidance, and examination of issues surrounding the independent audit.

On August 17, 2018, President Trump announced that he had asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to study whether U.S. listed companies should file interim financial statements at half-year intervals instead of on a quarterly basis. This essay examines the question underlying the President's concern: how frequently should public companies file interim statements? A review of accounting standards, regulations, and research reveals that there is (i) no agreed-upon best practice for reporting frequency, (ii) compelling evidence that analyst earnings estimates arising from interim reporting give rise to executive angst, and (iii) some evidence that lengthening reporting intervals will harm investors. The short-term implication of this essay is that readers of this journal should participate in SEC deliberation on this issue. The long-term implication is that we need to encourage accounting scholars from various disciplines to try to answer the President's question.

Passive asset managers, seeking to deliver investment returns that mirror market indices, now control and vote about 30% of all managed U.S. shares. When bad news surfaces, index investors do not sell a company's shares. Instead, these beneficial owners protect the value of equity investments by influencing governance practices to restore long-term value creation. Interviews with stewardship offices at leading index investment firms suggest that passive investors do not use financial accounting information to value securities. The implication of this study is that the current focus of accounting standard setting – predicated on the idea that the purpose of financial reporting is to permit prediction of future cash flows – does not meet the needs of a particular group of financial statement users who have considerable influence over the governance of leading listed companies around the world.

This paper provides a survey of the empirical literature on financial reporting in private firms. Although private firms play a dominant role in country-level economic development, research on their financial reporting is limited. The survey reveals that there remains uncertainty as to the purpose of financial reporting in private firms which is also reflected in the current body of the empirical literature. The survey provides implications for regulators with respect to regulating the financial reporting of private firms. The survey also identifies some limitations of existing research and offers potential avenues for future research.

This paper examines the participation of accounting firms in the development of sustainability standards by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). This study shows that the Big Four accounting firms have an active role in both the submission of comment letters on sustainability to the SEC and participation in the industry working groups (IWG) for the SASB. The SASB participation reveals that individuals located within the US and at international affiliates are participating at earlier career stages. In addition, this paper leverages LinkedIn data, identifying the career path of the individuals subsequent to their participation with the IWG, to determine how large accounting firms are retaining the skills and knowledge necessary for this field. Since the Big Four firms are market leaders in sustainability assurance, the finding that Big Four firms can retain individuals with financial assurance backgrounds differently than individuals with other backgrounds speaks to the unique skill set that financial assurance develops. This suggests that the career opportunities for interested financial assurance individuals within the sustainability sphere remain robust within the Big Four environment.

In this paper key regulation-related findings and commentaries in the 2016 academic literature are synthesized in annotated form. This paper is one in a series of previously published annotated bibliographies published in this journal. Papers published in academic outlets including The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation were reviewed for potential inclusion. The 2016 literature featured strong regulation-related threads as follows: financial accounting regulation, analysis of individual pronouncements, SEC regulatory activity and its impact, international financial reporting standards, income tax reporting, and auditing.

Over the past two decades, the regulatory landscape for non-GAAP reporting has evolved significantly. Despite a temporary decline in the frequency of non-GAAP reporting following Regulation G, the incidence of non-GAAP disclosure has continued to increase steadily, leading to a current all-time high in reporting activity. This proliferation of non-GAAP disclosure has captured the attention of standard setters and regulators in recent years. This paper provides an academic perspective on policy implications for both regulation and standard setting. We contend that current Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) of the SEC staff may perhaps have gone too far in restricting certain types of non-GAAP disclosures. As a result, we advocate a slight relaxation of the current enforcement of Regulation G. We agree with FASB proposals for greater disaggregation in the income statement to allow for more transparency in non-GAAP reporting. Finally, we believe the PCAOB should consider requiring auditors to take a more direct role with respect to non-GAAP disclosures.

Since its inception over four decades ago, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been led by seven individuals who have served as Board Chair. This paper includes a biographical sketch of the individuals, their terms of service, standards topics and some points of commonality and difference in their prior experience and Board service. This study provides a synoptic review to assist those interested in learning more about the Board Chairs, and to inform as to the role and style of each individual in contrast to the others. The paper provides a foundation for future research of these individuals, their activities and actions through other historical research such as oral histories, collections of writings and speeches and similar catalogues of activity.

This study examines how the specific attributes of one type of voluntary corporate governance mechanism, a specialized political contribution committee, improves the transparency of corporate political disclosure (CPD). The results demonstrate that the existence of a committee that establishes and reviews key political activities and disclosure policies, particularly one composed entirely of outside directors, significantly enhances the transparency of corporate political disclosure, and reveal that an under-studied board committee, the political contribution committee, effectively improves CPD transparency. The results are consistent with agency theory and further support the more generalizable idea that specialized governance mechanisms (e.g., a political contribution committee) and fully independent committees lead to more transparent disclosure. Finally, the results suggest that the existence of a political contribution committee and committee independence are channels to improve CPD transparency. Public-policy makers and regulators seeking to enhance CPD transparency might consider implementing regulations that mandate or recommend these governance mechanisms as best practice.