Jaar 05 2018 0063
Jaar 05 2018 0063
Jaar 05 2018 0063
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-05-2018-0063
Downloaded on: 16 May 2019, At: 23:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:300473 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
JAAR
20,1 The impact of principles-based vs
rules-based accounting standards
on reporting quality and
78 earnings management
Received 9 May 2018
Revised 14 August 2018
Dennis Sundvik
19 October 2018 Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Accepted 28 November 2018
Abstract
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether principles-based vs rules-based accounting
standards have an effect on measures of financial reporting quality and earnings management strategies.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a firm-year-specific variable that captures the extent to
which firms’ accounting and operating behavior is affected by the characteristics of a specific standard in the
USA. Measures of absolute accruals, financial misconducts, signed abnormal accruals and abnormal cash
flows are used to assess the effects.
Findings – The results show that absolute magnitude of accruals and probability of financial misconduct is
lower, and accrual earnings management is higher when firms’ standards are more based on principles. The
study also suggests that potentially costlier real earnings management is a consequence of rules-based standards.
Research limitations/implications – This study relies heavily on measures from the prior accounting
literature, hence, care has been exercised in generalizing the findings.
Practical implications – This study has direct implications for a number of stakeholders, including standard
setters, policymakers, securities regulators, researchers, investors, financial statement preparers and auditors.
For example, the future development of accounting standards can be supported by the empirical conclusions in
this study together with previous standard-setting ambitions, commentaries, experiments and analytical work.
Originality/value – This study extends prior single-country studies on reporting quality and cross-country
studies on transition effects of firms switching from local to International Accounting Standards by
observing the impact of accounting standard characteristics on additional measures of reporting quality and
accrual as well as real earnings management when holding institutional factors constant. The study also
offers archival evidence complementing prior commentaries, experiments and analytical work.
Keywords Earnings management, Accounting standards, Accruals, Principles-based standards
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Since the major accounting scandals (e.g. Enron and WorldCom) that eventually led to the
Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002, the potential benefits and costs of accounting standard
characteristics and whether the USA should move to a more principles-based system have been
debated. An argument is that transaction structuring played a big role in the scandals and that
the rules-based characteristics of the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
were to blame. Through financial engineering, firms were able to achieve technical compliance
while evading the actual intent. More principles-based standards, like the International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) that European publicly listed firms apply, provide more
discretion for managers, which, in turn, allow them to better capture the underlying business
economics while simultaneously complying with the intent. As a response to the critics, the US
standard-setting bodies have pushed for a move toward more principles-based standards and
considered a potential adoption of IFRS to increase reporting quality.
Journal of Applied Accounting
Research The author would like to thank the journal Editor, two anonymous journal referees, Josué Braga, Jesper
Vol. 20 No. 1, 2019
pp. 78-93 Haga and Dan Givoly for their insightful comments that have greatly benefitted the paper. The author is
© Emerald Publishing Limited also grateful for the financial support from the Foundation for Economic Education (Liikesivistysrahasto),
0967-5426
DOI 10.1108/JAAR-05-2018-0063 Society of Swedish Literature in Finland and Suomen Arvopaperimarkkinoiden Edistämissäätiö.
Empirical evidence indicates that principles-based standards lead to higher reporting quality Reporting
together with an increase in accrual earnings management (Folsom et al., 2017). While Schipper quality and
(2003) comments on the positive attributes of rules-based standards, she reasons that earnings
rules-based standards force firms to substitute accrual earnings management with real earnings
management. Specifically, due to less discretion, rules-based standards constrain the use of management
accruals and lead to potentially costlier manipulation of cash flows when there is pressure to
perform. The model of Ewert and Wagenhofer (2005) consistently shows that real earnings 79
management increases with rules-based standards. However, researchers have not fully
examined whether these arguments hold with archival data. Besides examining the relation
between various measures of reporting quality and accounting standard characteristics, I aim to
fill this empirical void in the literature. Studying real earnings management is important due to
its potential damaging effects on firms’ future value and based on the aggregate effects on the
economy as a whole (Vorst, 2016; Bereskin et al., 2018). As such, this paper answers the call of
Nelson (2003) for more research on the implications of accounting standard characteristics, and
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
the call of DeFond (2010) and Walker (2013) for more real earnings management research
overall and specifically for more insight into the real earnings management implications of
accounting standards.
Following Folsom et al. (2017), I use a firm-year-specific measure that captures the extent to
which the US firms’ accounting is affected by the characteristics of a specific standard. I provide
evidence that principles-based standards are associated with lower absolute total and abnormal
accruals, and a lower incidence of financial misconduct. In terms of earnings management, I find
that firms with greater reliance on principles-based standards engage in more accrual and less
real earnings management. Considering that prior research (e.g. Vorst, 2016; Bereskin et al.,
2018) identifies real earnings management as more costly in the long-run, rules-based standards
could potentially have more negative consequences than principles-based standards.
In Folsom et al. (2017), the focus is on the relevance and decision usefulness of financial
statements depending on the reliance on principles-based standards. Other studies using the
similar measure concentrate on the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) comment
letters (Boone et al., 2013) and determinants of rules-based characteristics (Donelson et al., 2016).
I extend these studies by examining how accounting standards shape reporting quality in
general and earnings management strategies in particular. By investigating accrual and real
earnings management and showing how accounting standards determine the choice of
earnings management strategy beyond firm-level costs such as financial health or audit
quality, I contribute to the trade-off literature on earnings management (Zang, 2012; Haga et al.,
2018). My results based on archival data also complement and test the arguments and models
of prior commentaries, experiments and analytical work (Nelson et al., 2002; Nelson, 2003;
Schipper, 2003; Ewert and Wagenhofer, 2005). Combining these provides a solid ground for
future discussions of the real consequences of accounting standard characteristics. Previous
archival research (e.g. Barth et al., 2008) primarily investigates cross-country transition effects
of firms switching from local GAAP to IFRS. Due to variations in institutional settings and
problems with voluntary adopters, such studies face several challenges (Gordon et al., 2013).
I overcome many problems by focusing on a large sample from the largest economy in the
world and utilizing the variation within one set of domestic standards, namely, the US GAAP.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature and develops hypotheses.
Section 3 describes the research methods. Section 4 presents the results. The final section
concludes.
have reporting discretion, since managers can use it to communicate value relevant private
information about future cash flows. As such, managers can both improve reporting quality
by information signaling and reduce it by earnings management.
et al., 2002; Folsom et al., 2017) find that managers engage in accrual earnings management
when standards are based on principles. One underlying reason is that auditors and other
gatekeepers have a hard time to prove that various discretionary judgments are incorrect.
However, the increase in accrual earnings management should be most prominent in settings
where there are clear incentives ( for a review of such incentives, see Walker, 2013). Thus, the
prediction of H1 should still hold in a general context. The next section provides a deeper
discussion on earnings management.
2.3 Accounting standard implications for accrual and real earnings management
Much of the prior literature on earnings management is involved with accrual earnings
management, which deals with the various accounting choices managers can make in order
to reach various reporting objectives without affecting cash flows (Walker, 2013). However,
since Graham et al. (2005) indicated that managers are not afraid to sacrifice long-term value
for short-term gains by altering cash flows either, the literature increasingly analyses real
earnings management. One example of real earnings management is sales manipulation,
which may take the form of more lenient credit terms or offering price discounts in order to
temporarily increase sales and consequently, earnings. This will cause lower current-period
abnormal cash flows from operations but likely also lower cash flows in the future since
customers will continue to demand similar credit terms or price discounts (Roychowdhury,
2006). Firms not able to satisfy these customers could thus face future customer losses and
decreasing sales. Vorst (2016) and Bereskin et al. (2018) portray similar evidence of the
value-destroying consequences of real earnings management. Thus, differentiating between
the strategies of earnings management is highly important.
Zang (2012) recognizes that there is a trade-off between the different earnings
management strategies so that firms with high costs for real earnings management engage
in more accrual earnings management, and vice versa. For example, since real earnings
management sacrifices long-term value, firms in poorer financial health engage in more
accrual earnings management. Using this framework, I expect a trade-off between different
earnings management strategies based on the reliance on principles-based or rules-based
accounting standards. This expectation is mainly built on analytical work by Demski (2004)
and Ewert and Wagenhofer (2005). Demski (2004) assumes that rules-based standards
reduce accrual earnings management. Furthermore, Ewert and Wagenhofer (2005), based on
Fisher and Verrecchia (2000), make a case for a trade-off story by suggesting that more
rules-based standards restrict the possibility for accrual earnings management while such
characteristics actually increase costly real earnings management. Both commentaries of
Nelson (2003) and Schipper (2003) subsequently indicate that rules-based accounting
standards should increase earnings management through real activities and transaction
JAAR structuring that has cash flow effects. However, this has not been empirically tested with
20,1 archival data. The current study will fill this void in the literature.
Prior empirical work on the characteristics of accounting standards has mainly focused on
earnings management in general or accrual earnings management. In a cross-country study,
Barth et al. (2008) view income smoothing as earnings management and find less with more
principles-based standards (after the voluntary adoption of IAS/IFRS). Christensen et al. (2015)
82 find the same in Germany. For mandatory IFRS adopters, Ahmed et al. (2013) and Christensen
et al. (2015) show that smoothing has increased. With a focus on both voluntary and
mandatory IFRS adopters, Capkun et al. (2016) find that income smoothing increased for all.
Similarly, Callao and Jarne (2010) suggest that IFRS led to more abnormal accruals.
Jeanjean and Stolowy (2008) examine earnings distributions around IFRS implementation in
three countries, but only find an increase in earnings management post-adoption in France,
suggesting that principles-based standards could be associated with more earnings management
in general. Barth et al. (2008) do not find the frequency of small positive profits to be significantly
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
different in different regimes. The result of Jeanjean and Stolowy (2008) is, however, partly
consistent with the findings of Folsom et al. (2017) who find a higher kink in the earnings
distribution around zero for principles-based firms than for rules-based firms. Neither of these
studies discriminate between accrual and real earnings management, which means that their
findings relating to earnings benchmarks could be driven by either of the two strategies, or by
both, or simply suggesting that accrual earnings management is a more precise earnings
management tool, and therefore more strongly associated with benchmarks. In contrast, Ipino
and Parbonetti (2017) show that mandatory IFRS adoption in countries with strong enforcement
regimes has led to a decrease in accrual earnings management and an increase in costly real
earnings management. Walker (2013) recognizes the negative consequences of real earnings
management and calls for more research. Meanwhile, Doukakis (2014) does not find any
significant support for increased accrual or real earnings management after IFRS adoption, in
unsigned (absolute) terms where the direction of earnings management is not considered. The
current study analyses the direction of earnings management using the variation of accounting
standard characteristics within the US GAAP. Based on the majority of the literature, I formulate
two hypotheses regarding accrual and real earnings management, respectively, as follows:
H2. Accrual earnings management is higher for firms with more principles-based
accounting standards than for firms with more rules-based accounting standards.
H3. Real earnings management is lower for firms with more principles-based accounting
standards than for firms with more rules-based accounting standards.
3. Research methods
3.1 Variables and empirical models
I obtain data from the Compustat North America Annual file for the bulk of the dependent
variables and controls; the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) restatements
from Hennes et al. (2008)[1]; SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases
(AAERs) from Dechow et al. (2011) and Center for Financial Reporting and Management at
UC Berkeley; and from Folsom et al. (2017) to measure the extent to which US publicly
listed firms rely upon more principles-based standards[2]. Specifically, I use the firm-year
PSCORE measure from Folsom et al. (2017) as the independent variable of main interest.
This measure is available for the years 1994–2006 and measures the extent to which the
US publicly listed firms rely upon more principles-based standards, or less rules-based
characteristics. The measure considers the accounting standard characteristics based on
keyword searches and measures the impact of each specific standard on a firm.
The standardized firm-year-specific measure capturing the standard orientation of a firm
is constructed as the combination of standards a firm applies. Higher values of PSCORE Reporting
indicate a higher reliance on principles-based standards. For ease of interpretation, quality and
I use the quintiles of the PSCORE variable to examine how cross-sectional variation in earnings
reliance on different accounting standards is associated with the dependent variables.
The measure has been thoroughly validated by its creators and applied in some form by, management
for example, Boone et al. (2013) and Donelson et al. (2016).
With regard to the dependent variables, I use proxies for reporting quality in different 83
forms to test H1. I first use the magnitude of total accruals (TACC) and abnormal accruals
(AACC). Consistent with Dechow et al. (2010), higher absolute accruals are lower quality
because they represent a less persistent component of earnings. I calculate TACC as earnings
less operating cash flows. I obtain AACC by separating them from normal accruals using the
procedure in Kothari et al. (2005) where TACC is explained by the reciprocal of lagged total
assets, change in sales (SALE), property, plant and equipment (PPE) and lagged performance
(IB) with the following regression model:
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
TACCi;t ¼ b1 1=ATi;t1 þb2 DSALEi;t þb3 PPEi;t þb4 IBi;t1 þei;t : (1)
All variables are scaled by lagged total assets (AT). The regression model is estimated for
every two-digit industry code and year with at least 15 observations per industry year. The
residuals (ε) obtained from the regressions of Equation (1) are equal to AACC. Using
absolute TACC or AACC as the proxy for reporting quality, I test H1 by estimating the
following regression:
jTACCji;t or jAACCji;t ¼ a0 þ b1 PSCOREi;t þb2 SIZEi;t
þ b3 ROEi;t þb4 LOSSi;t þb5 SDROAi;t
þ b6 LEVi;t þb7 GROWTHi;t þb8 OPCYCLEi;t
þb9 INVi;t þb10 BIG4i;t þIndustry=Year Fixed Effectsþ ei;t : (2)
If higher reliance on principles-based standards is associated with higher reporting
quality (lower |TACC| or |AACC|), the coefficient on PSCORE will be negative. Besides the
variable of interest, I add a number of control variables. First, I add SIZE (the natural
logarithm of total assets) because it may be a surrogate for various omitted variables
(Ashbaugh-Skaife et al., 2008; Hope et al., 2013; Höglund and Sundvik, 2016). Second,
I include return on equity (ROE), cumulative number of loss-years (LOSS) and standard
deviation of return of assets for at least three fiscal years (SDROA) as controls for
performance and volatility since firms facing distress are likely to report with lower
quality (Kothari et al., 2005; Hope et al., 2013). Third, I add LEV (debt to assets) because
highly leveraged firms and firms close to violating their debt covenants may also have
lower quality earnings due to stronger earnings management incentives (DeFond and
Jiambalvo, 1994; Zang, 2012). Fourth, Ashbaugh-Skaife et al. (2008) note that rapidly
growing firms are likely to have more noise in the reporting quality measures due to
anticipation of future sales growth and I therefore include GROWTH (growth in assets).
Following Dechow and Dichev (2002), I add controls for operating cycle (OPCYCLE)
and inventory (INV ), since reporting quality is likely related to operating cycle length and
variability of operations. I also include an indicator variable for audit quality (BIG4) based
on the reasoning that larger auditors provide a better foundation for the quality of
financial information (Hope et al., 2013). Finally, I add industry and year fixed effects.
As a second set of proxies for reporting quality, I use the GAO and SEC AAER financial
misconduct data sets. These external indicators of reporting quality have an advantage over
accruals in the sense that outsiders have identified a problem with quality ex post. Using the
two forms, I capture different nuances of reporting quality since GAO restatements include
JAAR both accounting irregularities and accounting estimation errors whereas AAERs tend to
20,1 be more fraudulent. I expect firms with a higher reliance on principles-based standards to
have a lower probability of GAO restatements and AAERs. To test H1 using these
measures, I estimate the following logistic regression model:
1
Prob GAOi;t or AAERi;t ¼ Z
; where Z ¼ a0 þb1 PSCOREi;t
1 þe
84
þb2 SIZEi;t þb3 ROEi;t þb4 LOSSi;t
þb5 SDROAi;t þb6 LEVi;t þb7 GROWTHi;t
þb8 OPCYCLEi;t þb9 INVi;t þb10 BIG4i;t
þIndustry=Year Fixed Effects þei;t : (3)
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
accounting standards are more principles-based. However, the absolute value of abnormal
accruals is larger in the highest quintile of PSCORE, potentially due to more accrual earnings
management. The positive average of abnormal accruals in high PSCORE firms also suggests
that there is more income increasing accrual earnings management in these firms. Meanwhile,
the abnormal cash flows from operations show the opposite signs, suggesting that there is
more real earnings management in the rules-oriented firms. This would be consistent with the
trade-off expectations. See Panel C of Table I for variable definitions.
Table II reports that higher reliance on principles-based standards is positively
correlated with reporting quality in the form of lower absolute total accruals and lower
incidence of financial misconduct. Consistent with the analysis in Panel B of Table I, |AACC|
is positively correlated with PSCORE. Furthermore, PSCORE is negatively correlated with
ACFO. Consistent with Zang (2012), there is a positive correlation between the earnings
management proxies. Overall, the correlations in Table II are not strong enough to infer bias
in the regression models. In addition, the Variance Inflation Factors for the variables are all
below 4.0, which mitigates multicollinearity concerns.
4. Results
4.1 Accounting standards and reporting quality
Table III presents the regression results of Equation (2) in Models (1) and (2), and of Equation
(3) in Models (3) and (4). Using both approaches, the regressions associate principles-based
standards with higher reporting quality. Namely, the coefficient on the quintile rank value of
PSCORE is negative and statistically significant in all four models[3]. This result is consistent
with H1. Holding other variables constant, the Model (1) results suggest that moving from the
lowest to the highest quintile of PSCORE decreases the absolute value of total accruals of the
average firm by 0.012. Furthermore, firms that are more profitable and with higher audit
quality have higher reporting quality. Growing firms, however, contribute to lower reporting
quality. The signs and levels of significance of these variables are consistent with the findings
of prior studies (e.g. Hope et al., 2013). The explanatory power is above 20.0 percent in both
Models (1) and (2), which is relatively good with aggregate accrual dependent variables. The
results, in Models (3) and (4) of Table III, confirm a significantly negative relation between
PSCORE and financial misconduct in the multivariate setting[4]. The more principles-based
standards, the less likely the firm is to restate or have an accounting irregularity. Considering
the coefficient of −0.196 on PSCORE in Model (3), a change in the quintile of PSCORE from
highest to lowest leads to a large increase in the probability of financial misconduct from 0.016
to 0.035, holding other variables fixed. The explanatory power of the models is satisfactory
and explains 8.5 percent of the dependent variables, on average. With regard to the control
variables, larger firms and firms with more losses have more restatements.
JAAR Panel A: descriptive statistics for the full sample
20,1 Variable Mean Median SD 25% 75% n
Raw PSCORE −15.757 −13.821 9.460 −19.359 −9.849 27,498
|TACC| 0.094 0.064 0.142 0.032 0.113 27,498
|AACC| 0.069 0.043 0.077 0.019 0.089 27,110
GAO 0.062 0.000 0.241 0.000 0.000 27,498
AAER 0.014 0.000 0.117 0.000 0.000 27,498
86 AACC 0.004 0.005 0.104 −0.038 0.049 27,110
ACFO −0.003 −0.005 0.130 −0.066 0.052 27,110
SIZE 5.758 5.612 1.929 4.318 7.031 27,498
ROE 0.007 0.094 0.804 −0.006 0.159 27,498
LOSS 0.247 0.000 0.349 0.000 0.429 27,498
SDROA 0.072 0.029 0.166 0.012 0.071 27,498
LEV 0.496 0.493 0.265 0.300 0.655 27,498
GROWTH 0.185 0.071 0.605 −0.020 0.213 27,498
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
PSCORE |TACC| |AACC| GAO AAER AACC ACFO SIZE ROE LOSS SDROA LEV GROWTH OPCYCLE INV
PSCORE 1.000
|TACC| −0.024*** 1.000
|AACC| 0.033*** 0.564*** 1.000
GAO −0.098*** 0.019*** 0.022*** 1.000
AAER −0.048*** 0.007 0.012* 0.239*** 1.000
AACC 0.057*** −0.366*** −0.082*** −0.008 0.013* 1.000
ACFO −0.063*** 0.045*** 0.142*** 0.009 0.002 0.310*** 1.000
SIZE −0.473*** −0.190*** −0.288*** 0.070*** 0.060***−0.032***−0.060*** 1.000
ROE 0.012* −0.186*** −0.165*** −0.013** −0.003 0.140***−0.156*** 0.125*** 1.000
LOSS −0.035*** 0.254*** 0.273*** 0.014** −0.114***−0.099*** 0.311*** −0.362*** −0.271*** 1.000
SDROA −0.009 0.345*** 0.318*** 0.017*** −0.003 −0.072*** 0.196*** −0.248*** −0.203*** 0.376*** 1.000
LEV −0.262*** 0.001 −0.031*** 0.040*** −0.006 −0.053*** 0.170*** 0.385*** 0.051*** −0.059*** −0.021*** 1.000
GROWTH −0.001 0.368*** 0.223*** 0.016** 0.023***−0.013* 0.000 −0.125*** 0.036*** 0.0116* 0.058*** −0.072*** 1.000
OPCYCLE 0.002 0.030*** −0.082*** −0.022*** −0.011 −0.084***−0.018** 0.069*** 0.013* −0.027*** −0.028*** 0.113***−0.055*** 1.000
INV 0.210*** −0.048*** −0.009 −0.012* −0.004 0.069*** 0.089*** −0.115*** 0.036*** −0.134*** −0.079*** −0.013* −0.076*** −0.180*** 1.000
BIG4 −0.126*** −0.026*** −0.057*** 0.040*** 0.0217***−0.024*** 0.006 0.207*** 0.012* −0.019*** −0.018*** −0.024***−0.008 0.045*** −0.025***
Notes: See Table I, Panel C for variable definitions. *,**,***Denote a two-tailed p-value of less than 0.10, 0.05 and 0.01, respectively
earnings
Reporting
87
quality and
management
Table II.
Univariate
Pearson correlations
JAAR 4.2 Accounting standards and earnings management
20,1 Table IV reports the regression results of Equation (5) for the full sample in Models (1) and
(2). H2 and H3 predict different coefficients on the PSCORE variable for the different
earnings management strategies, with a positive (negative) coefficient when signed AACC
(ACFO) is the dependent variable. In terms of AACC, the positive coefficient of 0.004,
88
|TACC| |AACC| GAO AAER
Model (1) Model (2) Model (3) Model (4)
(Zang, 2012). The coefficients on PSCORE resembles the ones for the full sample in terms of sign
and level of significance, suggesting that the results identifying a trade-off between earnings
management strategies hold in an incentive setting.
5. Conclusions
Is there an association between accounting standard characteristics and reporting quality and
earnings management strategies? My findings indicate that principles-based accounting
JAAR standards are associated with increased reporting quality. In terms of earnings management,
20,1 I find that higher reliance on principles-based standards is synonymous with accrual earnings
management whereas lower reliance is synonymous with real earnings management. These
findings suggest that rules-based standards move the main earnings management strategies
of firms to the potentially costlier side that affects cash flows from operations.
This study contributes to the research and standard-setting arena in various ways.
90 First, I offer archival evidence complementing the arguments and analytical models of
prior commentaries (Nelson, 2003; Schipper, 2003) and theoretical studies (Demski, 2004;
Ewert and Wagenhofer, 2005). I also extend empirical studies that have only analyzed
transition effects of firms switching from one set of standards to another and studies that
have left discretion over cash flows outside the research question (e.g. Barth et al., 2008;
Folsom et al., 2017). As such, this study has potential to bridge the gap between theory and
practice since it has direct implications for a number of stakeholders, such as standard
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
Notes
1. I thank the authors for the GAO-based data set, which is available at: https://kelley.iu.edu/bpm/
activities/errorandirregularity.html
2. I thank the authors for the supplementary data set, which is available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.2016.2465
3. I use the quintile rank value of PSCORE instead of the raw PSCORE measure for ease of Reporting
interpretation. This is consistent with Folsom et al. (2017) and the results are quantitatively the quality and
same with the raw measure.
earnings
4. The GAO dependent variable, results in Model (3) of Table III, is based on the IRREGULARITY
measure from Hennes et al. (2008). The (untabulated) results remain quantitatively the same when
management
all firms in the GAO data set, either due to errors or irregularities, are identified as GAO equal to 1,
and 0 otherwise.
91
References
Ahmed, A.S., Neel, M.J. and Wang, D. (2013), “Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting
quality? Preliminary evidence”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1344-1372.
Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., Collins, D.W., Kinney, W.R. Jr and LaFond, R. (2008), “The effect of SOX internal
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
control deficiencies and their remediation on accrual quality”, Journal of Accounting Research,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1-43.
Barth, M.E., Landsman, W.R. and Lang, M.H. (2008), “International Accounting Standards and
accounting quality”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 467-498.
Bereskin, F.L., Hsu, P.-H. and Rotenberg, W. (2018), “The real effects of real earnings management:
evidence from innovation”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 525-557.
Boone, J.P., Linthicum, C.L. and Poe, A. (2013), “Characteristics of accounting standards and SEC
review comments”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 711-736.
Burgstahler, D. and Dichev, I. (1997), “Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses”,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 99-126.
Callao, S. and Jarne, J.I. (2010), “Have IFRS affected earnings management in the European Union?”,
Accounting in Europe, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 159-189.
Capkun, V., Collins, D. and Jeanjean, T. (2016), “The effect of IAS/IFRS adoption on earnings
management (smoothing): a closer look at competing explanations”, Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 352-394.
Christensen, H.B., Lee, E., Walker, M. and Zeng, C. (2015), “Incentives or standards: what determines
accounting quality changes around IFRS adoption?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 31-61.
Dechow, P. and Dichev, I. (2002), “The quality of accruals and earnings: the role of accrual estimation
errors”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 77, Supplement, pp. 35-59.
Dechow, P., Ge, W. and Schrand, C. (2010), “Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their
determinants and their consequences”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 50 Nos 2-3,
pp. 344-401.
Dechow, P., Ge, W., Larson, C.R. and Sloan, R.G. (2011), “Predicting material accounting
misstatements”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-82.
DeFond, M.L. (2010), “Earnings quality research: advances, challenges and future research”, Journal of
Accounting and Economics, Vol. 50 Nos 2-3, pp. 402-409.
DeFond, M.L. and Jiambalvo, J. (1994), “Debt covenant violations and manipulation of accruals”,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 17 Nos 1-2, pp. 145-176.
Demski, J.S. (2004), “Endogenous expectations”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 519-539.
Dichev, I., Graham, J., Harvey, C. and Rajgopal, S. (2013), “Earnings quality: evidence from the field”,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 56 Nos 2-3, pp. 1-33.
Donelson, D.C., McInnis, J. and Mergenthaler, R.D. (2016), “Explaining rules based characteristics in
U.S. GAAP: theories and evidence”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 827-861.
Doukakis, L.C. (2014), “The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on real and accrual-based earnings
management activities”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 551-572.
JAAR Dye, R.A. and Sunder, S. (2001), “Why not allow FASB and IASB standards to compete in the U.S.?”,
20,1 Accounting Horizons, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 257-271.
Ewert, R. and Wagenhofer, A. (2005), “Economic effects of tightening accounting standards to restrict
earnings management”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 1101-1124.
Fisher, P.E. and Verrecchia, R.E. (2000), “Reporting bias”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 75 No. 2,
pp. 229-245.
92 Folsom, D., Hribar, P., Mergenthaler, R.D. and Peterson, K. (2017), “Principles-based standards and
earnings attributes”, Management Science, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 2592-2615.
Gordon, E.A., Greiner, A., Kohlbeck, M.J., Lin, S. and Skaife, H. (2013), “Challenges and opportunities in
cross-country accounting research”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 141-154.
Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R. and Rajgopal, S. (2005), “The economic implications of corporate financial
reporting”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 40 Nos 1-3, pp. 3-73.
Gunny, K.A. (2010), “The relation between earnings management using real activities manipulation
Downloaded by SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET At 23:10 16 May 2019 (PT)
Corresponding author
Dennis Sundvik can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]