Ioannis Tsalavoutas

Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Compliance with IFRS Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to highlight the differences, and implications of any differences, between two approaches to measuring compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) mandatory disclosure requirements: the commonly used “dichotomous” approach; and the alternative, but rarely used, partial compliance unweighted approach. The former gives equal weight to the individual items required to be disclosed by all standards. The latter assumes that each standard is of equal importance and consequently gives equal weight to each standard. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs both methods on a sample of companies. We then compare the results deriving from the application of the two methods and statistically test their differences. Findings - It is found that the two methods produce significantly different overall and relative (i.e. ranking order) compliance scores. Practical implications - This paper should alert researchers to the implications of using either method. Additionally, it highlights the need for academics and/or practitioners to be cautious when interpreting the findings of prior studies on compliance with IFRS mandatory disclosure requirements. Since the two methods produce significantly different compliance scores, findings regarding the variables associated with compliance may differ, depending on the disclosure index method followed. The paper suggests that simultaneous application of both methods would result in more robust findings in future research. Originality/value - This is the first study to compare the results produced by applying both methods and statistically test their differences. The research methods explored are in particular relevant for policy-oriented, international accounting research.

Value relevance of R&D in the UK after IFRS mandatory implementation

Following International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) mandatory adoption in 2005, the criteria determining the accounting treatment of Research and Development (R&D) expenditure have changed for UK listed companies that publish consolidated financial statements. Therefore, recent literature raises concerns about the value relevance of R&D assets and expenses in the UK, after 2005. Using very recent data, we respond to these calls for research. Adding to the absence of prior evidence regarding the pre-IFRS period, we find that the capitalized portion of R&D is significantly positively related to market values, suggesting that the market perceives these items as successful projects with future economic benefits. R&D expenses are significantly negatively related to market values under IFRS, supporting the proposition that they reflect no future economic benefits and thus they should be expensed. Also in contrast with evidence regarding the pre-IFRS period, R&D expenses are negatively value relevant only for large companies. Accordingly, we argue that transition to IFRS does have implications on the valuation of R&D expenditure in the UK.

Value Relevance of IFRS Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to address recent calls for research regarding the valuation implications of mandatory disclosure requirements (cf. Hassan Design/methodology/approach - – The paper measures compliance with all International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) mandatory disclosure requirements for a sample of firms. The paper subsequently explores whether the compliance scores (i.e. the mandatory disclosure levels) are value relevant and whether the value relevance of accounting numbers differs across high- and low-compliance/disclosure companies. Findings - – The paper finds that the levels of mandatory disclosures are value relevant. Additionally, not only the relative value relevance (i.e. Research limitations/implications - – This paper is an indicative single country case study that focuses on the IFRS adoption year (2005) in the EU. It forms a new avenue for research regarding the valuation implications of mandatory disclosure requirements. It remains to future research to examine whether the findings also hold in other countries and periods. Practical implications - – These findings are expected to be particularly relevant to standard setters and regulatory bodies that are concerned about the implications of mandatory disclosure requirements (Schipper, 2007). Originality/value - – To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that examines the value relevance implications of IFRS mandatory disclosure requirements, focusing on European country after 2005. The authors indicate that IFRS mandatory disclosures do lead to more transparent financial statements (cf. Pownall and Schipper, 1999), mitigating concerns about companies’ fundamentals (cf. Anctil

IFRS Mandatory Disclosures in Malaysia: The Influence of Family Control and the Value (Ir)Relevance of Compliance Levels

Abstract We examine the effect of family control on IFRS mandatory disclosure levels, and the valuation implications of these disclosure levels, for Malaysian companies. We find that family control is related negatively to disclosure and that compliance levels are not value relevant. These findings suggest that agency theory predictions and theories linking common law legal systems to high quality financial reporting require refining in certain national contexts. Where Type 2 agency problems dominate, institutional arrangements intended to enhance financial reporting quality aimed at mitigating Type 1 problems in developed markets may have limited effect in less developed jurisdictions.

Compliance with Goodwill Related Mandatory Disclosure Requirements and the Cost of Equity Capital

Theory suggests that increased levels of corporate disclosure lead to a decrease in cost of equity via the reduction of estimation risk. We examine compliance levels with International Financial Reporting Standard 3 Business Combinations and International Accounting Standard 36 Impairments of Assets mandated goodwill-related disclosure and their association with firms’ implied cost of equity capital (ICC). Using a sample of European firms for the period 2008–2011, we find a median compliance level of about 83% and significant differences in compliance levels across firms and time. Non-compliance relates mostly to proprietary information and information that reveals managers’ judgement and expectations. Overall, we find a statistically significant negative relationship between the ICC and compliance with mandated goodwill-related disclosure. Further, we split the sample between firms meeting (or not) market expectations about the recognition of a goodwill impairment loss in a given year to study whether variation in compliance levels mainly plays a confirmatory or a mediatory role. We find the latter: higher compliance levels matter only for the sub-sample of firms that do not meet market expectations regarding goodwill impairment. Finally, our results hold only in countries where enforcement is strong.

Insights on CFOs’ Perceptions about Impairment Testing Under IAS 36

Abstract We survey CFOs of Italian listed companies and examine their views on the complexities involved in implementing IAS 36 requirements and the perceived usefulness of national guidelines aiming at assisting preparers in this respect. We find that IAS 36 is perceived as an atypical standard among IFRS, it demands subjective interpretation, its requirements can be made adaptable to managerial needs and do not limit creative accounting. Further, respondents do not see a strong link between IAS 36 disclosure requirements and market variables, except for stock returns. Moreover, the impairment testing process became more difficult during the recent financial crisis and guidelines issued by the Italian authorities do not appear to assist in implementing the recoverable amount estimation process or compliance with mandatory disclosure. The respondents explicitly call for a revision in IAS 36 and/or issuance of separate guidance. These findings inter alia respond directly to the IASB’s current quest on financial statements preparers’ concerns about the application of the IAS 36 requirements.

Mandated Disclosures Under IAS 36 Impairment of Assets and IAS 38 Intangible Assets: Value Relevance and Impact on Analysts’ Forecasts

ABSTRACT Drawing on a large sample of European firms, we examine whether variant compliance levels with mandated disclosures under IAS 36 Impairment of Assets and IAS 38 Intangible Assets are value relevant and affect analysts’ forecasts. Our results indicate a mean (median) compliance level of about 84% (86%) but high variation among firms and disclosure levels regarding IAS 36 being much lower than those regarding IAS 38. In depth, analysis reveals that non-compliance relates mostly to proprietary information and information that reveals managers’ judgment and expectations. Furthermore, we find a positive (negative) relationship between average disclosure levels and market values (analysts’ forecast dispersion). Results, however, hold more specifically for disclosures related to IAS 36, and these also improve analysts’ forecast accuracy. Our findings add knowledge regarding the economic consequences of mandatory disclosures, have an appeal to regulators and financial statement preparers and reflect on the IASB’s concerns to increase the guidance and principles on presentation and disclosure.

The Role and Current Status of IFRS in the Completion of National Rules – Evidence from Greece

Abstract Law 4308/2014 is the main regulation that transposed Accounting Directive 2013/34 of the EU into national law in Greece. This short paper summarises the underlying background and the process followed up to the issuance of this Law. It also outlines the key accounting principles introduced with this Law and how they compare with IFRS. This brief analysis indicates that, to a large extent, Greek accounting standards have now been aligned with IFRS. Given the preceding substantial differences between Greek accounting Laws and IFRS, this Law introduced significant changes to the accounting environment for non-listed companies in Greece, aiming at improving accounting quality and enhancing accounting comparability between listed and non-listed companies.

Corporate Governance, Agency Problems, and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from an Emerging European Market

Agency problems may arise from the separation of ownership and management (Type I) or from conflicts of interest between controlling and non-controlling shareholders (Type II). In this study, we investigate whether the relation between corporate governance and firm performance depends on the type of agency problem. Given its unique characteristics in terms ownership dispersion across the stock market’s segments, we use Cyprus as a natural experiment setting and we find a relation between governance and performance, primarily for firms more prone to Type I rather than to Type II agency problems. We interpret these findings as consistent with the view that governance effectiveness is a function of the type of agency problem. Thus, a uniform set of governance regulations, which is often applied, is unlikely to be efficient and/or optimal for all firms.

Integrated reporting decision usefulness : mainstream equity market views.

Highlights • Interviews with 22 mainstream UK equity market actors.• Despite institutional support, demand for, and decision-usefulness of, by equity market actors is low.• Low level of discourse within equity market and between users.• Concerns over the Framework and reporting comparability and consistency.• Lack of mandatory compliance and assurance further militates against use. Abstract The International Integrated Reporting () Framework (2013) identified providers of financial capital as its primary users. This research provides evidence from 22 mainstream equity market actors, employed by global investment houses, regarding the decision usefulness of and resistances to , as a reporting framework. Despite institutional-level support for , the interviews reveal that its usefulness to fund managers and equity analysts is low. Concerns are evident over the Framework design and its relevance to more structural issues pertaining to equity market culture. The implication of this is that may become a reporting fad, not embedded into mainstream investment thinking.