Global accounting convergence and the potential adoption of ifrs by the U.S. (Part II): Political factors and future scenarios for U.S. accounting standards

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 567-588

  Hail, Luzi ^a   Leuz, Christian ^b   Wysocki, Peter ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Accounting regulation; Convergence; Harmonization; Mandatory disclosure; Political economy; Standard setting; U.S. equity markets

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650692441     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2010.24.4.567     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Armstrong, C., M. Barth, A. Jagolinzer, and E. Riedl. 2010. Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review 85: 31-61.
2. Ball, R. 1995. Making accounting more international: Why, how, and how far will it go? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 8: 19-29.
3. Ball, R. 2006. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research 36: 5-27.
4. Benston, G., M. Bromwich, R. Litan, and A. Wagenhofer. 2006. Worldwide Financial Reporting: The Development and Future of Accounting Standards. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
5. Bradshaw, M., C. Callahan, J. Ciesielski, E. Gordon, L. Hodder, P. Hopkins, M. Kohlbeck, R. Laux, S. McVay, T. Stober, P. Stocken, and T. Yohn. 2010. Response to the SEC's proposed rule-Roadmap for the potential use of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by U.S. issuers. Accounting Horizons 24: 117-128.
6. Chand, P., and L. Cummings. 2008. The political and unstable nature of the IASB's "stable platform": Post-convergence Australian experience. Australian Accounting Review 18: 175-184.
7. Charnovitz, S. 2005. International standards and the WTO. Working paper, The George Washington University.
8. Daske, H., L. Hail, C. Leuz, and R. Verdi. 2008. Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research 46: 1085-1142.
9. Daske, H., L. Hail, C. Leuz, and R. Verdi. 2009. Adopting a label: Heterogeneity in the economic consequences of IFRS adoptions. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania and The University of Chicago.
10. De Franco, G., S. Kothari, and R. Verdi. 2009. The benefits of financial statement comparability. Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.
11. Doidge, C., G. A. Karolyi, and R. Stulz. 2004. Why are foreign firms listed in the U.S. worth more? Journal of Financial Economics 71: 205-238.
12. Dye, R., and S. Sunder. 2001. Why not allow FASB and IASB standards to compete in the U.S.? Accounting Horizons 15: 257-272.
13. Fülbier, R., J. Hitz, and T. Sellhorn. 2009. Relevance of academic research and researchers' role in the IASB's financial reporting standard setting. Abacus 45: 455-492.
14. Hail, L., and C. Leuz. 2006. International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? Journal of Accounting Research 44: 485-531.
15. Hail, L., and C. Leuz. 2009. Cost of capital effects and changes in growth expectations around U.S. crosslistings. Journal of Financial Economics 93: 428-454.
16. Hail, L., C. Leuz, and P. Wysocki. 2010. Global accounting convergence and the potential adoption of IFRS by the U.S. (Part I): Conceptual underpinnings and economic analysis. Accounting Horizons 24: 355-394.
17. Hope, O.-K., J. Jin, and T. Kang. 2006. Empirical evidence on jurisdictions that adopt IFRS. Journal of International Accounting Research 5: 1-20.
18. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). 2007. EU Implementation of IFRS and the Fair Value Directive: A Report for the European Commission. London, U.K.: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
19. KPMG. 2006. The Application of IFRS: Choices in Practice. Amstelveen, The Netherlands: KPMG LLP.
20. Leuz, C. 2003. IAS versus US GAAP: Information asymmetry-based evidence from Germany's New Market. Journal of Accounting Research 41: 445-472.
21. Leuz, C. 2006. Cross listing, bonding and firms' reporting incentives: A discussion of Lang, Raedy and Wilson (2006). Journal of Accounting and Economics 42: 285-299.
22. Leuz, C. 2007. Was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 really this costly? A discussion of evidence from event returns and going-private decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44: 146-155.
23. Leuz, C. 2010. Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: How jurisdictions differ and why. Accounting and Business Research 40: 1-28.
24. Leuz, C., and R. Verrecchia. 2000. The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research 38: 91-124.
25. Leuz, C., and P. Wysocki. 2010. Economic consequences of financial reporting and disclosure regulation: A review and suggestions for future research. Working paper, The University of Chicago and MIT Sloan School of Management.
26. Leuz, C., A. Triantis, and T. Wang. 2008. Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45: 181-208.
27. Li, H., M. Pincus, and S. O. Rego. 2008. Market reaction to events surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and earnings management. The Journal of Law and Economics 51: 111-134.
28. Meeks, G., and G. Swann. 2009. Accounting standards and the economics of standards. Accounting and Business Research 39: 191-210.
29. Nobes, C. 2006. The survival of international differences under IFRS: Towards a research agenda. Accounting and Business Research 36: 233-245.
30. Piotroski, J., and S. Srinivasan. 2008. Regulation and bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the flow of international listings. Journal of Accounting Research 46: 383-425.
31. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 2007. Has the Dust Settled Yet? London, U.K.: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
32. Rezaee, Z., and P. Jain. 2005. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accounting conservatism. Working paper, University of Memphis.
33. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2008. Roadmap for the potential use of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards by U.S. issuers. Release Nos. 33-8982 and 34-58960, File No. S7-27-08. November 21. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
34. Stulz, R. 2009. Securities laws, disclosure, and national capital markets in the age of financial globalization. Journal of Accounting Research 47: 349-390.
35. Sunder, S. 2002. Regulatory competition for low cost-of-capital accounting rules. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21: 147-149.
36. Sunder, S. 2009. IFRS and the accounting consensus. Accounting Horizons 23: 101-111.
37. Sunder, S. 2010. Adverse effects of uniform written reporting standards on accounting practice, education, and research. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29: 99-114.
38. Tweedie, D. 2008. Minutes of evidence taken before Treasury Committee Banking Crisis. Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence, HC 1167-ii. November 11. London, U.K.: House of Commons.
39. Waehrisch, M. 2001. The Evolution of International Accounting Systems: Accounting System Adoptions by Firms from a Network Perspective. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
40. Werle, R. 2001. Institutional aspects of standardization: Jurisdictional conflicts and the choice of standardization organizations. Journal of European Public Policy 8: 392-410.
41. Wysocki, P. 2010. IFRS and national institutions. Working paper, University of Miami.
42. Zhang, I. X. 2007. Economic consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44: 74-115.