Research in Accounting Regulation最新文献

This paper examines whether firms' auditor choice reflects the strength of corporate ethics. Based on a sample of 132,853 firm year observations from forty-six countries around the globe during the period from 1998 to 2007 and controlling for a number of firm- and country-level factors, we find that firms in countries where “high corporate ethical values” prevail are more likely to hire a Big 4 auditor. We also find that the positive effect of home country corporate ethical values on the likelihood of hiring a high-quality auditor is reinforced by the extent of the firm's board size. These results establish an indirect link between corporate ethics and financial reporting quality through the firms' choice of auditor.

This study examines bank loan officers' perceptions of auditor independence, objectivity and the reliability of the report on the financial statement when the attest auditors also provide (1) tax compliance services to the nonpublic entity that they audit, and (2) tax compliance services to executives of said entities. The primary issues addressed are (1) whether performing the external audit and providing tax compliance services for the same entity affects the aforementioned perceptions, and (2) whether adding tax compliance work for the executives of the entity affects these perceptions. We used a between-subject design and bank loan officers as participants. Findings based on 181 participants indicate that bank loan officers generally perceive a significant difference in independence and objectivity when the auditor also performs tax compliance work for the audited entity. On the other hand, loan officers do not perceive a significant difference concerning the reliability of the report on the financial statements. Similar results hold when tax compliance services for entity executives are added to the services performed with the exception that perceptions regarding the reliability of the report on the financial statements are also reduced significantly. Implications and limitation of these findings are discussed.

We investigate whether the change in accounting treatment of in-process research and development cost (IPRD) from expensing to capitalization affects the frequency of acquiring target firms with IPRD and the purchase price allocated to IPRD. We examine 1490 acquisitions in high-technology industries using a unique data set of purchase price allocations. For our sample as a whole, we find that the accounting rule change does not reduce the number of acquisitions with IPRD or the purchase price allocated to IPRD, but our results vary by industry. We provide evidence that the frequency of acquisitions with IPRD decreased for two of the four industry groups and IPRD intensity (IPRD/Assets Acquired) decreased for two industry groups. Our study contributes to research that examines whether mandatory accounting changes affect company economic decisions and research on managing earnings using IPRD.

The SEC continues to view companies' segment disclosures, including segment earnings, as needing improvement. Under a controversial provision of FAS 131, the sum of a company's segment earnings need not equal corporate net income. We refer to the difference between summed segment earnings and corporate-level income, when it exists, as the Gap. This study examines why Gaps exist. We find that the existence and direction of Gaps appear to reflect both reporting decisions intended to better reflect segment operating results and reporting incentives to obscure differences in profitability across segments. Gaps created for the former reason are shown to provide useful information to investors. We also find that summed segment earnings are, on average, more useful than corporate earnings (i.e. more persistent, predictable and informative) when there are negative Gaps (aggregated segment earnings exceed comparable corporate earnings), but less useful, on average, when positive Gaps are observed. On balance the evidence suggests that the FASB's decision in FAS 131 to allow segment-related income Gaps was justified.

Using an interest capitalization context, this paper examines the impact of accounting standard type (rules-based vs. principles-based) on the auditor's agreement with an auditee's proposed accounting treatment. Contrary to prior studies that have investigated lease classification contexts, results indicate that auditors are more likely to agree with the auditee's accounting treatment under a principles-based than a rules-based standard. The possibility of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation does not affect auditors' agreement with their auditee's accounting treatment. However, auditors are more confident in the rules-based scenario when they have no knowledge of a possible SEC investigation. Thus, the lack of precision inherent in a principles-based, interest capitalization standard may initially persuade auditors to agree with auditee judgments, but this perception may be moderated by a reduced level of confidence. Those interested in the standard setting process should look beyond the traditional lease structuring scenario and consider the possible effects of other principles-based standards on auditors' judgments and confidence.

This study investigates whether changes in the quality of risk management are associated with changes in earnings volatility. Our findings are consistent with firms achieving lower earnings volatility by implementing higher quality risk management systems. These results are robust across profit and loss firms, although the economic impact of risk management quality is more pronounced for loss firms. Our results provide evidence as to how companies accomplish market performance through a quality risk management framework, and offer a reason why companies should allocate resources toward risk oversight. In addition, our results also suggest that recent public policy initiatives to improve risk management practices have tangible rather than superficial benefits to external stakeholders.

This note contributes to the discussion on the compliance costs of disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies. Prior research tends to focus on audit cost increases when disclosure requirements are stricter. We add some evidence from the point of views of shareholders. Particularly, we contrast stock market reaction to the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act which significantly enhanced public company disclosure requirements, with the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act which alleviated disclosure requirements for small firms. Contrary to popular belief that more disclosure rules impose regulatory burdens on firms and are costly to implement, we find that the stock market reacted positively toward rules that require more disclosure; whereas it reacted negatively toward rules that require less disclosure, even though those disclosure rules were initially designed to reduce the costs of compliance.

Previous research finds that firms increase their assumed discount rates to minimize their reported pension benefit obligation. This paper demonstrates that firms whose pension plans have short durations lower their discount rates (rather than increase them), since a lower discount rate decreases their pension expense. These results are especially relevant in the present climate of low interest rates and more firms freezing their defined benefit pension plans, thereby shortening the duration of their obligations. Given its importance in shaping management motivation we believe that firms should be required to disclose the duration of their future obligations.