Throughout this study the term “expectation gap” refers to the difference between (1) what the public and financial statement users believe the responsibilities of auditors to be, and (2) what auditors believe their responsibilities are, as in McEnroe and Martens, 2001 (hereafter MM 2001). Approximately 20 years have elapsed since MM 2001 and much has happened in the area of audit failures (i.e. Enron, WorldCom) as well as perceived enhancements (i.e. Sarbanes-Oxley Act). We replicate MM 2001 in order to measure the impact of such events on the expectation gap through analyzing survey responses from auditors, investors, and CFOs. Our findings indicate that two expectation gaps identified by MM 2001 still exist; we believe they can be addressed and perhaps eradicated with educational measures. Our findings additionally indicate that four expectation gaps documented in MM 2001 have been eliminated over time, suggesting that auditors’ perceptions of their role, especially in the area of detecting fraud, has been enhanced.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the empirical effects of modifying the calculation of the diluted earnings per share (EPS) number in an international compared to the US accounting setting. The diluted EPS calculation originated in the US Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 15 (APB 15) and continues in both the US Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128 (SFAS 128), EPS and International Accounting Standard 33 (IAS 33) EPS. Our analysis of the treatment of dilutive warrants and options versus other dilutive convertible securities extends the work of McEnroe and Sullivan (2018), hereafter referred to as McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018 and provides more insight into the impact on the international accounting regulatory environment. Using the McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018 proposed alternative EPS model, we investigate revising the EPS model and analyzing the impact on international data observations. Design/methodology/approach The authors selected our sample from the Compustat Fundamentals Annual Database – North America Daily file. Although using the Global – Daily file would be ideal, the data the authors need to make the alternative EPS calculations is not available in the Global database. The authors pulled data for the years 2010 through 2016 for both the USA and international companies. The authors eliminated companies based upon the criteria described later in the paper (which is comparable to the data restrictions set in McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018). Findings The results are comparable to the results of the US study. The authors find an average increase in diluted EPS to be 4.57 per cent and the median increase to be 2.43 per cent. McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018 found the average increase in diluted EPS to be 5.72 per cent and the median increase to be 3.81 per cent. The authors do not find a significant difference in the overall average percentage increase when looking across all of the years in the data set and comparing the USA to international observations. Overall, the authors further extend the previous conclusion of McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018 that both the USA and international standard setters should consider the alternative diluted EPS model for accounting regulation. Research limitations/implications The study consists of a sample of 262 international firms. An extended study, of all firms subject to International Accounting Reporting Standards (IFRS) might be used by the International Accounting Standards Board and then stratified by country to see if the capital structure of a particular nation’s securities is particularly impacted by the results. Practical implications As McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018, p. 499 state, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) avers that the price-earnings ratio of an equity is perhaps the most frequently cited business statistic in equity analysis. The authors cite one source Kuepper, (2018), that it is “one of the most popular metrics” on the international level of stocks using IFRS. Given that the denominator, in the price-earnings ratio is the focus of our study, as in the case McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018, the results have implications for the further study and revision of IAS 33. Social implications Again, as in the case of McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018, if currently reported diluted EPS results in lower equity prices than under the proposed model, an effect might be higher debt and equity costs. Since the authors are unaware of any rationale for the current treatment, the authors feel that the current formulation is less than optimal and that the issue of its provisions should be examined. Originality/value A review of the literature found no other study other than McEnroe and Sullivan, 2018 undertaking the issue.

In 1954, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Committee on Accounting Procedure released an auditing book, which listed under the heading “Material” certain items of which it cautioned “material errors” could occur (AICPA, 1954, p. 1). From this date until the present, the accounting profession has struggled in its endeavors to find both a suitable definition and associated guidance to determine the materiality of information provided to financial statement users. Accordingly, in September 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued two exposure drafts that address the concept and interpretation (our emphasis) of materiality. The releases are Proposed Amendments to Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts, Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting; Chapter 3: Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information (Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), 2015a) and Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Notes to Financial Statements (Topic 235) Assessing Whether Disclosures Are Material (FASB, 2015b). In this article, the authors focus on the Chapter 3 amendments (FASB, 2015a), which proposes a new definition whose genesis is based on the US Supreme Court definition of the concept. Accordingly, the authors examined the views of two stakeholders in the US financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms, and Chief Financial Officers of the Fortune 1000 companies, regarding their perceptions of the proposed definition. The authors developed the research instrument to evaluate their perceptions of the proposed definition’s potential impact on various aspects of the audit and financial reports. The authors found that both populations have negative perceptions of the materiality definition in the exposure draft and an interpretation of the responses did not indicate an addition of any benefits from its adoption. Subsequent to our solicitation for our subjects’ opinions, the FASB voted unanimously in November 2017 to remove the reference to materiality as a legal concept (FASB, 2017) and in August 2018 (FASB, 2018) amended FASB Concept Statement No. 8 to replace the materiality definition with language similar to the previously superseded FASB Concept Statement No. 2. However, as the authors will explain in this article, the fact that three authoritative definitions exist, which continue to present problems for financial statement preparers and auditors. In this analysis, the authors find evidence that auditors and investors continue to see a significant difference between the terminology of “users” and “reasonable resource provider” within the various materiality definitions.

The objective of this study is to provide additional evidence regarding the effect of ambiguity on auditors’ and investors’ judgments when they evaluate managers’ disclosures about loss contingencies. Inspired by Nelson and Kinney (1997), we conducted an experiment where auditors and investors evaluate managements’ loss disclosures. We manipulate the probability of loss at three levels and the uncertainty about the ambiguity at two levels. Our results show that both auditors and investors appear to be aggressive towards financial reporting choices, and are less willing to recommend a loss contingency disclosure when there is ambiguity. Our results extend prior accounting literature and highlight the importance of understanding imprecise estimates in financial reporting. We found that auditors and investors reacted very similarly towards ambiguity in loss disclosures. This result may reflect a narrowing of the expectations gap around reporting accounting estimates and highlight the potential improvements in users’ confidence in accountants.

Purpose - This paper aims to investigate the empirical effects of an inconsistency in the calculation of the diluted earnings per share (EPS) number which originated in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 15 (APB 15) and continues in Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128 (SFAS 128), EPS. The discrepancy involves the treatment of dilutive warrants and options versus other dilutive convertible securities and is explained in the section of this paper where the authors describe the proposed alternative EPS model. In a sample of 55 publicly traded companies in which they applied their model, it was found that the average increase in diluted EPS to be 5.7 per cent and the median increase to be 3.8 per cent. The authors believe that SFAS 128 should be considered, along with other factors, to be revised to direct that diluted EPS be computed in accordance with their model. Design/methodology/approach - The authors selected a sample of companies from the Compustat Annual Database that had either Convertible Debt or Convertible Stock or both with a year-end between July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012 which was the most recent data available at the time of the initial study. They then used the model assuming a "repurchase" of common shares as if the "treasury stock method" which applies to options and warrants also applied to these conversions. They then reduced the number of shares initially used to compute diluted EPS by the number of assumed repurchased shares. Using the revised number of shares, the authors recomputed diluted EPS as a percentage of the originally reported diluted EPS. Findings - For the 55 companies in the sample, the average increase in diluted EPS using the "treasury stock method" was 5.7 per cent. The median increase was 3.8 per cent. The largest increase was 26.6 per cent and the smallest was 0 per cent. Research limitations/implications - This is a one-year study of the sampled firms. A multi-year sample is recommended for further research. Also, the sample might be applied to foreign entities under the jurisdiction of IAS 33. Practical implications - According to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) the price-earnings ratio of an equity is perhaps the most frequently cited statistic in the business of equity investments. As the denominator in the price-earnings ration is the "diluted" EPS figure calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) under Statement of Financial Accounting No. 128 (SFAS 128), the results have very significant implications for the recommended study and revision of the diluted EPS statistic. Social implications - If the current diluted EPS reported numbers result in lower stock prices than would otherwise be the case under the authors' model, then it seems likely that these companies with large amounts of debt would have a higher cost of equity capital than would otherwise be the case. The overall result would be a different allocation of equity capital than would be the case if convertible debt and convertible equity were treated the same way as options and warrants. As we are unaware of a rationale for the disparate treatment, it is believed that this a is a misallocation caused by a statement of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that seems flawed and recommend that it be considered to be revised. Originality/value - A review of the literature found no other study addressing this issue.

The typical unqualified audit report of publicly traded firms in the United States indicates the nature of the audit and an opinion that the firm's financial statements fairly present the financial position and the results of operations of the audited company. Accordingly, some users of the financial statements, including investors, do not consider the unqualified opinion to be very useful in providing other informational value about the particular audit. In this paper, the authors examined the views of two stakeholders in the US financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) in the Fortune 1000. The authors elicited their perceptions involving a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) proposed auditing standard commonly referred to as "the other information standard." This standard, if adopted, would require the auditor to evaluate information other than the audited financial statements and the related audit report for (1) a material inconsistency, (2) a material misstatement of fact, or (3) both, and if they exist, communicate them in the auditor's report. The authors developed their research instrument based upon its perceived potential effects on the audit if adopted, some of which were referenced in the exposure draft of the proposed standard (PCAOB, 2013). They found that a majority of each groups believed, among other effects, that the proposed standard would increase audit costs, subject both the auditor and the reporting firm to increased litigation risk, and that its implementation costs by affected firms would exceed any benefits to financial statement users created by the standard.

[...]this article will (1) discuss the nature of the different formats associated with OCI, including their advantages and disadvantages; (2) summarize the nature of the comment letters from practitioners in response to the May 2010 proposed ASU; and (3) provide an update regarding subsequent promulgations. In this quote from paragraph 31, the Board clearly admits that conceptual guidance is absent in the literature. [...]on August 4, 2016, the FASB issued an invitation to comment on potential financial accounting and reporting topics that it should consider adding to its agenda.

Purpose – This paper aims to understand the effects of different presentation formats on nonprofessional investors’ judgments. Both International Financial Reporting Standards and US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles require an entity to present items of net income and other comprehensive income (OCI) either in one continuous or in two separate, but consecutive, statements but limited understanding exists about their differential effects on evaluation of company performance. Design/methodology/approach – To investigate this research question, we used a two (Financial Position) x two (Format) randomized between-subjects experiment. Ninety-four graduate students assumed the role of investor and participated in this study. Findings – Results of the experiment suggest that participants are more likely to incorporate OCI information presented in the one-statement format than in the two-statement format. Further analysis suggests that participants both assign more weight to OCI and perceive OCI to be relatively more important in the one-statement format than in the two-statement format, especially when the entity suffers an economic loss. Originality/value – Results from this study provide evidence to the Financial Accounting Standards Board and International Accounting Standards Board that should be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of alternative comprehensive income reporting formats and should be of interest to accounting rule-making bodies, investors, publicly traded entities and financial analysts, among others.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) prohibits the reporting of cash flow per share (CFPS) information from the financial statements in fear of undermining the importance of the earning per-share metric. The objective of our research is to understand the validity of this argument by examining the effects of cash flow per share information on investors’ judgments. We conducted a two by one experiment where we manipulate cash flow per share as the absence or presence of the statistic in the financial statements. Eighty-eight MBA students assumed the role of investors and participated in this study. We find that the cash flow per share information affects investors’ reliance on cash flow information, but does not affect participants’ performance evaluation. Our results are in support of including CFPS in the income statement as it may lead investors to pay more attention to cash flow information.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to examine whether a less precise (or imprecise) estimate may increase investors’ confidence and improve investors’ perceptions of fair value reliability. The main criticism of fair value accounting has been its lack of reliability perceived by investors. Design/methodology/approach – A 2 × 3 randomized experiment was used where management incentive and information precision are manipulated. Findings – The results from this study indicate that perceived reliability is jointly affected by management’s incentives and information precision. Reliability rating is the highest for fair value stated as a point estimate with a specified confidence level attached to it. Further analysis indicates that higher perceived reliability is related to its representational faithfulness because participants perceive that a point estimate with a specified confidence level better matches uncertainty in measuring future cash flows. Originality/value – This is the first study to examine whether a less precise (or imprecise) estimate may increase investors’ confidence and improve investors’ perceptions of fair value reliability. Because of the subjectivity and uncertainty in fair value estimates, less precise fair value estimates may not be viewed as less reliable. In fact, using a precise format to represent fair value estimates may not be appropriate (neither reliable nor credible), because a precise point estimate fails to capture its underlying uncertainty in future cash flows. A less precise format could represent a credible choice for fair value because it reflects uncertainty and subjectivity and effectively communicates management’s assessments of variability in future cash flows.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act calls for substantially increased government regulation. Whether those regulations are, in some sense, appropriate is a function of whether the benefits of the increased regulation exceed the costs. Those costs and benefits, however, are probably impossible to measure, at least at this early stage of the implementation of the Dodd-Frank reforms. On the other hand, financial professionals who regularly deal with governmental regulations probably have a good sense of the costs and benefits based on their own experience with other similar regulations. This chapter reports the result of a survey of high-level auditors and CFOs regarding their perceptions of the costs and benefits of the main parts of the financial regulatory reform incorporated into the Dodd-Frank legislation. It concludes that there is support among these individuals for some aspects of Dodd Frank, but no consensus.

This study examines practitioners’ perceptions of uses of stock option compensation expense. Specifically, Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 123(R) requires firms to report the estimated fair value of stock option compensation as an expense over the employees’ required service period. There has been much controversy surrounding this standard: academics, industry leaders and regulators question the reliability of estimating stock option value; consequently, the usefulness of reporting stock option expense in financial statements has been challenged. We provide insights into this debate by finding that financial analysts, on average, support the expensing of stock option expense. Further, approximately two-thirds of analysts use stock option expense in their forecast of short and long term earnings. We also find that analysts’ practices regarding stock option expense are not swayed by managements’ exclusion of stock option expense in earnings announcements. Together, our findings suggest that financial analysts believe stock option expense contains meaningful information about firm performance.

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.

As of this writing, non-U.S. companies using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are permitted to list their securities on U.S. stock exchanges without reconciling those statements to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently considering a proposed rule that would require all U.S. issuers to employ IFRS by 2015. SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter has emphasized that IFRS should be incorporated into U.S. capital markets only if the change benefits U.S. investors. Current Chairperson Mary Schapiro more recently echoed this statement. Accordingly, this paper reports on the results of a survey of individual investors’ attitudes toward this potential change. It concludes that U.S. investors are satisfied with the current U.S. accounting model and do not desire a movement toward the adoption of IFRS.

INTRODUCTION Until recently, all foreign entities that are traded on United States (U.S.) stock exchanges were required to include a reconciliation to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP) if the financial statements were not prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The firms provided this information on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 20-F. This is a very expensive exercise that cost some companies millions of dollars annually (Scannell and Reilly 2007a). This burden, in conjunction with the additional costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, has led to many U.S. de-listings by foreign entities (Uhlfelder 2007). In an effort to combat these de-listings, coupled with concerns that the U.S. financial markets are losing their competitive edge to London and Hong Kong (Scannell and Reilly 2007), the SEC proposed that certain foreign entities be allowed to file financial statements under either U.S. GAAP or under the English language version of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) published by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP (SEC 2007). On November 15, 2007, the SEC voted unanimously in favor of the proposal. On December 21, 2007, the SEC issued the final rule which was entered into the Federal Register on January 4, 2008 (SEC 2008a). The rule applies to financial statements ending after November 15, 2007. The IFRS promulgations to be used in lieu of U.S. GAAP are referred to as full IFRS. An analysis of the comment letters by LaFon (2007) to the SEC proposal revealed that most of the commenters endorsed the proposal. A few opposed it, however, with the most vehement opposition originating from the Investors' Technical Advising Committee (ITAC), a body whose charge is to render technical advice to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from an investor's perspective. In the letter, the Committee stated that it would like to see concrete evidence that U.S. GAAP and IFRS standards are substantially equivalent before the reconciliation requirement is eliminated. The Committee went on to state, We suggest that the Commission undertake an evaluation of the IFRS/U.S. GAAP differences commonly found in the reconciliations, and periodically publicly disseminate and report upon such an inventory. (ITAC 2007, 2) Given this background, our research, in part, is intended to accomplish this challenge. Another objective is to ascertain if the SEC roadmap for the adoption of IFRS is appropriate. As we will indicate in an ensuing section, the incoming SEC Chairperson is apprehensive about the proposed schedule. Our results should be of interest to financial statement users, especially financial analysts and accounting standard setters. Our paper begins with a discussion of the background of the topic, continues with a literature review and our research questions, and then our methodology, summary and conclusions. BACKGROUND The SEC first required listed foreign entities that did not employ U.S. GAAP to submit supplementary information in 1967. The instructions associated with Form 20-F did not specifically require a reconciliation, but rather, the financial statements, audit report, and other schedules that domestic issuers were required to file. Prior to 1967, the foreign entities only had to file a balance sheet and income statement, with no requirement for this information to be certified. In 1982 the Commission implemented the current reconciliation requirement (SEC 2007). Although the Commission has required this information for the past twenty-five years, the agency has long advocated reducing differences in accounting principles between the U.S. and other countries in an effort to facilitate cross-border capital formation. In 1994, it accepted the cash flow statement prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standard No. 7 (IASB 2004b) without reconciliation. …

Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (SFAS No. 5), relies on verbal probability phrases to guide recognition or disclosure decisions for loss contingencies. One of the challenges facing accountants is that verbal probability terms are vague and may have multiple meanings; thus, different accountants may interpret the same probability phrase differently. Given this background, our study addresses the difficulty of interpreting verbal probability phrases and explores a simple way to improve judgment quality. Evidence from our experiment suggests that supplementing verbal probabilities with their corresponding numerical values reduces interpersonal variability in interpreting SFAS No. 5 terms.

A number of empirical accounting research studies from the late 1960s to the present have been concerned with the effects of the policy behavior of accounting rule-making bodies on the behavior of security prices affected by the accounting pronouncement, and are occasionally referred to as policy intervention studies.

This study provides empirical evidence that the disclosures required by FASB Statement No. 34 has an impact on common stock prices in the initial year of release, 1980, but not in subsequent year. Weekly data for 123 NYSE sample companies were used to estimate the regression coefficients via the GMM using a GLS with a lag of 3 due to the presence of autocorrelation. Statistical analysis of the average residual indicated that it was significantly different from zero. The evidence of this study supports the hypothesis that FASB 34 affected the capital market equilibrium via users reactions to the required disclosures.

This study investigates the impact of multiple information sources. Specifically, we examine whether single and multiple earnings forecasts may differentially influence investors' expectations. We focus on two main aspects of investors' expectations: (a) predictions of future EPS and (b) subjective confidence about their own predictions. We conduct an experiment where we hold information content constant and ask participants to evaluate multiple earnings forecasts or a single earnings estimate. Results from the experiment suggest that multiple information sources improve participants' confidence, and participants are most confident when they receive multiple earnings forecasts with no variability. However, their confidence diminishes when variability in the multiple forecasts increases. Evidence from this study indicates that multiple information sources outperform the single source only when multiple reports have highly consistent information.