Recognition and disclosure reliability: Evidence from SFAS No. 106;Fiabilité de l'information comptabilisée et publiée: Conséquences de l'adoption du FAS 106

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 399-429

  Davis Friday, Paquita Y ^a   Liu, Chao Shin ^a   Mittelstaedt, H Fred ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Disclosure; Recognition; Reliability; SFAS No. 106

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042626103     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/T0VC-Q15Y-W5QV-4UKQ     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Amir, E. 1993. The market valuation of accounting information: The case of postretirement benefits other than pensions. The Accounting Review 68 (4): 703-24.
2. Amir, E. 1996. The effect of accounting aggregation on the value-relevance of financial disclosures: The case of SFAS No. 106. The Accounting Review 71 (4): 573-90.
3. Amir, E., and A. Ziv. 1997. Recognition, disclosure or delay: Timing the adoption of SFAS No. 106. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (1): 61-81.
4. Barth, M. 1991. Relative measurement errors among alternative pension asset and liability measures. The Accounting Review 66 (3): 433-63.
5. Barth, M., W. Beaver, and W. Landsman. 2001. The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: Another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1-3): 77-104.
6. Bernard, V., and K. Schipper. 1994. Recognition and disclosure in financial reporting. Working paper, University of Michigan and University of Chicago.
7. Boone, J. 2002. Revisiting the reportedly weak value relevance of oil and gas asset present values: The roles of measurement error, model misspecification, and time-period idiosyncrasy. The Accounting Review 11 (1): 73-106.
8. Choi, B., D. Collins, and W. Johnson. 1997. Valuation of reliability differences: The case of nonpension postretirement obligations. The Accounting Review 12 (3): 351-83.
9. Collins, D., and W. Salatka. 1993. Noisy accounting earnings signals and earnings response coefficients: The case of foreign currency accounting. Contemporary Accounting Research 10 (1): 119-59.
10. Davis-Friday, P., L. B. Folami, C. Liu, and H. F. Mittelstaedt. 1999. The value relevance of financial statement recognition versus disclosure: Evidence from SFAS No. 106. The Accounting Review 74 (4): 403-23.
11. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1975. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 8: Accounting for the translation of foreign currency transactions and foreign currency financial statements. Stamford, CT: FASB.
12. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1978. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1: Objectives of financial reporting by business enterprises. Stamford, CT: FASB.
13. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1980. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2: Qualitative characteristics of accounting information. Stamford, CT: FASB.
14. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1981. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 52: Foreign currency translation. Stamford, CT: FASB.
15. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1984a. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5: Recognition and measurement in financial statements of business enterprises. Stamford, CT: FASB.
16. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1984b. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 81: Disclosure of postretirement health care and life insurance benefits. Stamford, CT: FASB.
17. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1985. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 87: Employers' accounting for pensions. Stamford, CT: FASB.
18. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1990. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 106: Employers' accounting for postretirement benefits other than pensions. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
19. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1993. A guide to implementation of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 106 on employers' accounting for postretirement benefits other than pensions. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
20. Holthausen, R., and R. Watts. 2001. The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31 (1-3): 3-75.
21. Khurana, I., and M. Loudder. 1994. The economic consequences of SFAS 106 in rate-regulated enterprises. The Accounting Review 69 (2): 364-80.
22. Landsman, W. 1986. An empirical investigation of pension and property rights. The Accounting Review 61 (4): 662-91.
23. Mittelstaedt, H. F., W. Nichols, and P. Regier. 1995. SFAS No. 106 and benefit reductions in employer-sponsored retiree health care plans. The Accounting Review 70 (4): 535-56.
24. Mittelstaedt, H. F., and M. Warshawsky. 1993. The impact of liabilities for retiree health benefits on share prices. Journal of Risk and Insurance 60 (1): 13-35.
25. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1987. Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 74: Disclosure regarding accounting standards issued but not yet adopted. Washington, DC: SEC.
26. White, J. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48 (4): 817-38.