Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.1912369
Peter Frii, M. Hamberg
Abstract We investigate how different motives shape the initial accounting for goodwill in a setting dominated by controlling owners, using data from 1112 acquisition analyses reported by Swedish listed acquiring firms. In contrast to prior studies, we find no evidence that earnings-based compensation affects the proportion of the purchased price accounted for as goodwill. Instead, we find that when a family-owned firm is the acquirer, a larger proportion of the purchase price is accounted for as goodwill than as specific assets and liabilities. These two findings indicate that controlling owners may curb managerial motives, while controlling family owners apply the discretion of IFRS 3 according to their motives. We also find in this setting that acquisition-related motives have a significant impact on the proportion of the purchased price accounted for as goodwill. Overall, our analyses indicate that the motives shaping goodwill accounting choices depend on the institutional setting.
{"title":"What motives shape the initial accounting for goodwill under IFRS 3 in a setting dominated by controlling owners?","authors":"Peter Frii, M. Hamberg","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.1912369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.1912369","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We investigate how different motives shape the initial accounting for goodwill in a setting dominated by controlling owners, using data from 1112 acquisition analyses reported by Swedish listed acquiring firms. In contrast to prior studies, we find no evidence that earnings-based compensation affects the proportion of the purchased price accounted for as goodwill. Instead, we find that when a family-owned firm is the acquirer, a larger proportion of the purchase price is accounted for as goodwill than as specific assets and liabilities. These two findings indicate that controlling owners may curb managerial motives, while controlling family owners apply the discretion of IFRS 3 according to their motives. We also find in this setting that acquisition-related motives have a significant impact on the proportion of the purchased price accounted for as goodwill. Overall, our analyses indicate that the motives shaping goodwill accounting choices depend on the institutional setting.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2021.1912369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44491653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-27DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.1912370
Andrei Filip, Ahmad Hammami, Zhongwei Huang, Anne Jeny, M. Magnan, Rucsandra Moldovan
ABSTRACT The IFRS 13 post-implementation review by the IASB motivates our investigation on the value relevance of fair value (FV) measurement hierarchy (i.e. level 1, level 2, and level 3). First, using a meta-analysis, which allows us to summarize inconsistent empirical findings, we synthesize studies on the value relevance of the FV hierarchy. Overall, value relevance is lower for level 3 than for levels 1 and 2, but it increases over time. In non-U.S. studies, we note lower value relevance across all levels of FV assets. Underlying asset fundamentals, model risk, and measurement process complexity may contribute to this value relevance gap. Second, from interviews with professionals from financial institutions, we note that, in practice, there has been extensive learning about FV accounting since the 2007–9 Financial Crisis and a formalization of the valuation process that the academic literature has yet to fully recognize. We thus highlight conceptual and methodological issues and areas for research with practical implications.
{"title":"Convergence in Motion: A Review of Fair Value Levels’ Relevance","authors":"Andrei Filip, Ahmad Hammami, Zhongwei Huang, Anne Jeny, M. Magnan, Rucsandra Moldovan","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.1912370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.1912370","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The IFRS 13 post-implementation review by the IASB motivates our investigation on the value relevance of fair value (FV) measurement hierarchy (i.e. level 1, level 2, and level 3). First, using a meta-analysis, which allows us to summarize inconsistent empirical findings, we synthesize studies on the value relevance of the FV hierarchy. Overall, value relevance is lower for level 3 than for levels 1 and 2, but it increases over time. In non-U.S. studies, we note lower value relevance across all levels of FV assets. Underlying asset fundamentals, model risk, and measurement process complexity may contribute to this value relevance gap. Second, from interviews with professionals from financial institutions, we note that, in practice, there has been extensive learning about FV accounting since the 2007–9 Financial Crisis and a formalization of the valuation process that the academic literature has yet to fully recognize. We thus highlight conceptual and methodological issues and areas for research with practical implications.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2021.1912370","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42737855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.1900582
Giovanna Michelon, G. Trojanowski, R. Sealy
Abstract Narrative reporting, both in relation to financial and non-financial information, is increasingly used and often mandated, with significant managerial discretion regarding content. As policy makers consider reporting as a tool for regulation to steer the behaviour of companies towards improving practices and performance upon which they have to disclose, the aim of this paper is to provide the state of the art in the academic literature on narrative reporting and identify future challenges. In order to do so, the paper investigates three questions: (1) How has the quality of narrative reporting been defined? (2) What narrative information is required and used by various stakeholders? (3) What are the real effects of narrative reporting? In answering these three questions, our review also gives implications for both future academic research and policy makers.
{"title":"Narrative Reporting: State of the Art and Future Challenges","authors":"Giovanna Michelon, G. Trojanowski, R. Sealy","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.1900582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.1900582","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Narrative reporting, both in relation to financial and non-financial information, is increasingly used and often mandated, with significant managerial discretion regarding content. As policy makers consider reporting as a tool for regulation to steer the behaviour of companies towards improving practices and performance upon which they have to disclose, the aim of this paper is to provide the state of the art in the academic literature on narrative reporting and identify future challenges. In order to do so, the paper investigates three questions: (1) How has the quality of narrative reporting been defined? (2) What narrative information is required and used by various stakeholders? (3) What are the real effects of narrative reporting? In answering these three questions, our review also gives implications for both future academic research and policy makers.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2021.1900582","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47180205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-15DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.1894347
Katrin Hummel, M. Szekely
Abstract This study examines disclosure on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in firms’ annual reports. For a sample of European firms listed in the STOXX Europe-600 index and a reporting period of four years, we use textual analysis to assess both firms’ explicit reference to the SDGs in their annual reports as well as the implicit prevalence of SDG topics. In addition, we use content analysis to manually assess the quality of firms’ disclosure on the SDGs based on eleven reporting items. The results show a substantial increase in SDG reporting quality over time but a distinct lack of disclosure of quantitative and forward-looking information. Further analyses reveal the relevance of both financial and non-financial stakeholders. Specifically, SDG disclosure is particularly associated with a high relevance of socially responsible investors, customers or environment-related public pressure, while financial analysts, employees and the media are not associated with SDG disclosure.
{"title":"Disclosure on the Sustainable Development Goals – Evidence from Europe","authors":"Katrin Hummel, M. Szekely","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.1894347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.1894347","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\u0000 This study examines disclosure on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in firms’ annual reports. For a sample of European firms listed in the STOXX Europe-600 index and a reporting period of four years, we use textual analysis to assess both firms’ explicit reference to the SDGs in their annual reports as well as the implicit prevalence of SDG topics. In addition, we use content analysis to manually assess the quality of firms’ disclosure on the SDGs based on eleven reporting items. The results show a substantial increase in SDG reporting quality over time but a distinct lack of disclosure of quantitative and forward-looking information. Further analyses reveal the relevance of both financial and non-financial stakeholders. Specifically, SDG disclosure is particularly associated with a high relevance of socially responsible investors, customers or environment-related public pressure, while financial analysts, employees and the media are not associated with SDG disclosure.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2021.1894347","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44338247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1865549
Pierre Astolfi
Abstract I examine the role of IFRS on the Audit Expectation Gap (AEG). Past research, mostly based on Porter [(1993). An empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.9729463]’s work, does not identify the contribution of accounting standards to the AEG. Yet, IFRS may play a crucial role in an auditor’s mission, because accounting standards now result in more complex and more subjective rules and financial statements. I examine whether IFRS are a factor explaining the perception of the AEG and its components by auditors and preparers of financial information. And, if so, what does this impact, more specifically, result from? Using survey data of 158 auditors and preparers of financial information working in an IFRS environment, I find that the contribution of IFRS to the AEG is underestimated while it is, in fact, at least as important as auditing standards. In addition, respondents think that IFRS generated more complexity (especially regarding issues raised by IFRS 9, IAS 36/IFRS 3 or IFRS 2) and more subjectivity, which contributed to the AEG, and led users of financial statements to be more demanding towards auditors. Auditors are perceived as supposed to be able to offset difficulties suffered by investors regarding the complexity and subjectivity of IFRS. However, the capacity of auditors themselves to fully understand the complexities resulting from IFRS may be overestimated. Furthermore, the results show that auditors’ skills and training seem to be insufficient regarding the increasing complexity of IFRS. Lastly, I find that less experienced respondents underestimate the contribution of accounting standards to the AEG.
{"title":"Did the International Financial Reporting Standards Increase the Audit Expectation Gap? An Exploratory Study","authors":"Pierre Astolfi","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1865549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1865549","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I examine the role of IFRS on the Audit Expectation Gap (AEG). Past research, mostly based on Porter [(1993). An empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.9729463]’s work, does not identify the contribution of accounting standards to the AEG. Yet, IFRS may play a crucial role in an auditor’s mission, because accounting standards now result in more complex and more subjective rules and financial statements. I examine whether IFRS are a factor explaining the perception of the AEG and its components by auditors and preparers of financial information. And, if so, what does this impact, more specifically, result from? Using survey data of 158 auditors and preparers of financial information working in an IFRS environment, I find that the contribution of IFRS to the AEG is underestimated while it is, in fact, at least as important as auditing standards. In addition, respondents think that IFRS generated more complexity (especially regarding issues raised by IFRS 9, IAS 36/IFRS 3 or IFRS 2) and more subjectivity, which contributed to the AEG, and led users of financial statements to be more demanding towards auditors. Auditors are perceived as supposed to be able to offset difficulties suffered by investors regarding the complexity and subjectivity of IFRS. However, the capacity of auditors themselves to fully understand the complexities resulting from IFRS may be overestimated. Furthermore, the results show that auditors’ skills and training seem to be insufficient regarding the increasing complexity of IFRS. Lastly, I find that less experienced respondents underestimate the contribution of accounting standards to the AEG.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1865549","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49453452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.1900581
Andrei Filip, Ahmad Hammami, Zhongwei Huang, Anne Jeny, M. Magnan, Rucsandra Moldovan
ABSTRACT The IASB's post-implementation review of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement motivates our analysis of the evolution of the value relevance of fair value (FV) levels over time on banks that report under IFRS and U.S. GAAP. For both sets of standards, results provide evidence that is consistent with (1) an increase in value relevance across all three FV levels over time, and (2) a convergence of the value relevance of the three FV levels over time. However, FV levels exhibit systematically higher value relevance under U.S. GAAP compared to IFRS. Such gap has closed to some extent since the enactment of IFRS 13. This evolution is likely due to learning about FV accounting and changes in financial reporting regulations that increased disclosure requirements. These findings confirm the IASB's conclusions that FV levels’ disclosure is useful to users of financial statements, but also emphasizes preparers and investors’ learning over time.
{"title":"The Value Relevance of Fair Value Levels: Time Trends under IFRS and U.S. GAAP","authors":"Andrei Filip, Ahmad Hammami, Zhongwei Huang, Anne Jeny, M. Magnan, Rucsandra Moldovan","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.1900581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.1900581","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The IASB's post-implementation review of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement motivates our analysis of the evolution of the value relevance of fair value (FV) levels over time on banks that report under IFRS and U.S. GAAP. For both sets of standards, results provide evidence that is consistent with (1) an increase in value relevance across all three FV levels over time, and (2) a convergence of the value relevance of the three FV levels over time. However, FV levels exhibit systematically higher value relevance under U.S. GAAP compared to IFRS. Such gap has closed to some extent since the enactment of IFRS 13. This evolution is likely due to learning about FV accounting and changes in financial reporting regulations that increased disclosure requirements. These findings confirm the IASB's conclusions that FV levels’ disclosure is useful to users of financial statements, but also emphasizes preparers and investors’ learning over time.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2021.1900581","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46375624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-27DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1841904
C. Fabio
This paper explores how the global standard setter and the European Union (EU) use public interest arguments; the study discusses these in relation to the perceptions of the actors included in the ...
本文探讨了全球标准制定者和欧盟(EU)如何利用公共利益论据;该研究讨论了这些与演员的看法，包括在…
{"title":"The use of Public Interest Arguments in the European Accounting Field","authors":"C. Fabio","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1841904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1841904","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores how the global standard setter and the European Union (EU) use public interest arguments; the study discusses these in relation to the perceptions of the actors included in the ...","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1841904","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60429999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-27DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1829656
Ruud G. A. Vergoossen, Ferdy van Beest
Abstract Unlike the vast majority of the EU member states, the Netherlands incorporated an option provided by the EU Accounting Directive that exempt companies from the obligation to file the management report with the trade register when a copy of it can be obtained from the company upon request. About 60% of the companies use this filing exemption option, but the availability of the management reports of these companies appears to be poor, because they are (very) reluctant to fulfill a request, rejecting it or do not respond to it at all. Therefore, it is interesting to examine whether the choice of how the management report is published, is associated with the level of compliance with disclosure obligations. In order to do that, we create a disclosure score based on the legal disclosure requirements. Multivariate analysis shows that disclosure compliance of management reports that are filed with the trade register is significantly higher than of those not filed but made available by the company. We also find a significant positive relationship between disclosure compliance and the length of management reports. Compliance levels appear not to be significantly associated with the timeliness of publication, company size and the size of the external auditor’s firm. Based on our research findings we advocate the removal of the filing exemption option on management reports.
{"title":"Management Reports of Dutch Companies: Their Availability and Compliance with Legal Disclosure Requirements","authors":"Ruud G. A. Vergoossen, Ferdy van Beest","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1829656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829656","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Unlike the vast majority of the EU member states, the Netherlands incorporated an option provided by the EU Accounting Directive that exempt companies from the obligation to file the management report with the trade register when a copy of it can be obtained from the company upon request. About 60% of the companies use this filing exemption option, but the availability of the management reports of these companies appears to be poor, because they are (very) reluctant to fulfill a request, rejecting it or do not respond to it at all. Therefore, it is interesting to examine whether the choice of how the management report is published, is associated with the level of compliance with disclosure obligations. In order to do that, we create a disclosure score based on the legal disclosure requirements. Multivariate analysis shows that disclosure compliance of management reports that are filed with the trade register is significantly higher than of those not filed but made available by the company. We also find a significant positive relationship between disclosure compliance and the length of management reports. Compliance levels appear not to be significantly associated with the timeliness of publication, company size and the size of the external auditor’s firm. Based on our research findings we advocate the removal of the filing exemption option on management reports.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829656","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44235328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-17DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655
Stephanie Jana, K. McMeeking
ABSTRACT Alternative performance measures (APMs) might be used to improve the information environment or strategically to mislead the market. The recently introduced European Securities and Markets Authority APM guidelines are intended to enhance corporate financial disclosures. We analyse the disclosure quality and determinants of all types of APMs in management reports of German listed firms for two financial periods. Although the quantity of APM disclosures is extensive, it differs across firms’ characteristics, and there is considerable room for improvement regarding disclosure quality. APM disclosure quality is positively associated with firm size and negatively associated with profitability. However, not all firms’ characteristics can be applied per se as universal determinants of APM disclosure quality, and a distinction must be made between different types of APMs. For example, high ownership concentration is negatively associated particularly with the quality of profitability APMs. Firms’ leverage is positively associated with the disclosure quality of non-profitability APMs.
{"title":"Alternative Performance Measures: Determinants of Disclosure Quality – Evidence from Germany","authors":"Stephanie Jana, K. McMeeking","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Alternative performance measures (APMs) might be used to improve the information environment or strategically to mislead the market. The recently introduced European Securities and Markets Authority APM guidelines are intended to enhance corporate financial disclosures. We analyse the disclosure quality and determinants of all types of APMs in management reports of German listed firms for two financial periods. Although the quantity of APM disclosures is extensive, it differs across firms’ characteristics, and there is considerable room for improvement regarding disclosure quality. APM disclosure quality is positively associated with firm size and negatively associated with profitability. However, not all firms’ characteristics can be applied per se as universal determinants of APM disclosure quality, and a distinction must be made between different types of APMs. For example, high ownership concentration is negatively associated particularly with the quality of profitability APMs. Firms’ leverage is positively associated with the disclosure quality of non-profitability APMs.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48084785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-10DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056
Shuai Yuan
Abstract The 2006 EU Directive established an EU-wide system for public oversight of the audit profession. In the UK, since 2008 the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published inspection reports for major audit firms, which include overall quality ratings for the individual audit engagements of each audit firm under review. This study examines the FRC’s ratings, and measures their impact on audit fees and audit firm switching. A significant increase in audit fees is found when the audit firm has a higher proportion of engagements with deficient ratings, probably arising from the additional effort and resources needed to meet the FRC’s requirements. This impact is more concentrated among clients with Big 4 audit firms. However, there is no evidence that FRC ratings affect clients’ likelihood of switching audit firms, suggesting that inspection results may not signal audit quality, and thus do not affect clients’ audit firm appointment decisions. The results provide evidence that inspection ratings may increase audit costs, but may not be valuable in distinguishing audit quality, and thus have no effect on audit committees’ audit firm appointment decisions. This finding advances understanding of the effectiveness of the audit inspection regime, and provides auditing regulators with guidance on policy making.
{"title":"Cost and Informativeness of Regulatory Reports: Evidence from the UK","authors":"Shuai Yuan","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2006 EU Directive established an EU-wide system for public oversight of the audit profession. In the UK, since 2008 the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published inspection reports for major audit firms, which include overall quality ratings for the individual audit engagements of each audit firm under review. This study examines the FRC’s ratings, and measures their impact on audit fees and audit firm switching. A significant increase in audit fees is found when the audit firm has a higher proportion of engagements with deficient ratings, probably arising from the additional effort and resources needed to meet the FRC’s requirements. This impact is more concentrated among clients with Big 4 audit firms. However, there is no evidence that FRC ratings affect clients’ likelihood of switching audit firms, suggesting that inspection results may not signal audit quality, and thus do not affect clients’ audit firm appointment decisions. The results provide evidence that inspection ratings may increase audit costs, but may not be valuable in distinguishing audit quality, and thus have no effect on audit committees’ audit firm appointment decisions. This finding advances understanding of the effectiveness of the audit inspection regime, and provides auditing regulators with guidance on policy making.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48508526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：