美国致国际会计准则理事会的意见书和美国证券交易委员会对使用国际财务报告准则的意见的演变

IF 4.6 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting in Europe Pub Date : 2022-04-04 DOI:10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281
R. Larson, Mark Myring, Raf Orens
{"title":"美国致国际会计准则理事会的意见书和美国证券交易委员会对使用国际财务报告准则的意见的演变","authors":"R. Larson, Mark Myring, Raf Orens","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper investigates drivers of US lobbying on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before, during, and after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) active consideration to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Examining comment letters (CLs) for 148 IASB proposals from 2001 through 2014 finds that while a variety of US stakeholders lobbied, the response rates are low. CL writing in total and by preparers significantly increased during the peak of SEC interest (2007–2010), but afterwards significantly decreased. US writers focus more on key issues rather than responding to proposals earlier in the IASB’s due process. US writers lobbied more about topics also on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)’s agenda and larger US preparers were more likely to write CLs and write them more frequently than smaller preparers. Overall, response rates are associated with the likelihood that US stakeholders would need to comply with IFRS.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"US comment Letter Writing to the IASB and Evolving SEC Views on the Use of IFRS\",\"authors\":\"R. Larson, Mark Myring, Raf Orens\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper investigates drivers of US lobbying on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before, during, and after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) active consideration to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Examining comment letters (CLs) for 148 IASB proposals from 2001 through 2014 finds that while a variety of US stakeholders lobbied, the response rates are low. CL writing in total and by preparers significantly increased during the peak of SEC interest (2007–2010), but afterwards significantly decreased. US writers focus more on key issues rather than responding to proposals earlier in the IASB’s due process. US writers lobbied more about topics also on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)’s agenda and larger US preparers were more likely to write CLs and write them more frequently than smaller preparers. Overall, response rates are associated with the likelihood that US stakeholders would need to comply with IFRS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文研究了在美国证券交易委员会(SEC)积极考虑采用国际财务报告准则(IFRS)之前、期间和之后,美国游说国际会计准则理事会(IASB)的驱动因素。对2001年至2014年期间国际会计准则理事会(IASB) 148项提案的意见函(CLs)的审查发现,尽管各种各样的美国利益相关者进行了游说,但回复率很低。在证券交易兴趣高峰期(2007-2010年),总CL写作量和编制者的CL写作量显著增加,但之后显著下降。美国的编写者更多地关注关键问题,而不是在IASB正当程序的早期对建议作出回应。美国作家对财务会计准则委员会(FASB)议程上的主题进行了更多的游说,较大的美国编制人更有可能编写CLs,并且比较小的编制人更频繁地编写CLs。总体而言,回复率与美国利益相关者需要遵守国际财务报告准则的可能性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
US comment Letter Writing to the IASB and Evolving SEC Views on the Use of IFRS
ABSTRACT This paper investigates drivers of US lobbying on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before, during, and after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) active consideration to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Examining comment letters (CLs) for 148 IASB proposals from 2001 through 2014 finds that while a variety of US stakeholders lobbied, the response rates are low. CL writing in total and by preparers significantly increased during the peak of SEC interest (2007–2010), but afterwards significantly decreased. US writers focus more on key issues rather than responding to proposals earlier in the IASB’s due process. US writers lobbied more about topics also on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)’s agenda and larger US preparers were more likely to write CLs and write them more frequently than smaller preparers. Overall, response rates are associated with the likelihood that US stakeholders would need to comply with IFRS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting in Europe
Accounting in Europe BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
The impact of the non-audit fee cap on audit quality in European public interest entities Exploring Multi-level Drivers of Accountants’ Opinions on the Changes Introduced by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive The Readability of Non-Financial Information. The Role of Stakeholders' Pressure in the European Setting Does Readability of Textual Disclosures in Modern Slavery Reports Pay Off? Evidence from a Regulatory Setting How Ethical is Earnings Management? Evidence from an Emerging Economy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1