Search

Although publication benchmarking studies for accounting faculty have been completed for highly ranked research institutions, there is not comparable data for the hundreds of smaller, less high profile, and less resource rich accounting programs. This study provides data for institutions that rank 200+ in the BYU accounting rankings. We take a sample of 50 institutions from this population to develop publication benchmarking for promotion to associate professor. We also provide insights on the timing of publications relative to promotion dates and compare these results to previous benchmarking studies. These results are useful for faculty at these institutions to inform their research efforts and to inform promotion and other decisions by faculty and administrators. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

SYNOPSIS Nicholas Dopuch (1929–2018), most recently on the faculty of the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, was an extraordinary accounting thinker, influential journal editor, prolific accounting researcher, and treasured colleague and mentor. By documenting his early upbringing, academic career, and professional activities, this memorial article summarizes the profound impact that Professor Dopuch had on the accounting academy and the many scholars and students with whom he worked. The article also analyzes Dopuch's body of scholarship, and, in so doing, complements Kinney and Libby's (1999) earlier assessment of his foundational contribution to research on credible financial reporting. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; M48.

In this paper, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature are synthesized in annotated bibliography form. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. Papers in top accounting outlets such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Research in Accounting Regulation and Review of Accounting Studies are included. Threads in the 2017 literature included general regulatory accounting issues, general financial reporting issues, examinations of the impact of specific guidance, and examination of issues surrounding the independent audit.

Benchmarking studies for accounting faculty are often done for highly ranked research institutions. These data inform important decisions at these and similar accounting programs but are less useful for programs with lesser research expectations. The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical benchmarking data for the hundreds of institutions that rank 200+ in the BYU accounting rankings. We take a random sample of 50 institutions from this population to develop publication benchmarking for promotion to associate professor. We also provide insights on the timing of publications relative to promotion dates and compare these results to previous benchmarking studies. These results are useful for faculty at these institutions to inform their research efforts and for faculty and administrators associated with institutions ranked 200+ to inform promotion and other decisions.

In this paper key regulation-related findings and commentaries in the 2016 academic literature are synthesized in annotated form. This paper is one in a series of previously published annotated bibliographies published in this journal. Papers published in academic outlets including The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, The Journal of Financial Reporting, Auditing A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation were reviewed for potential inclusion. The 2016 literature featured strong regulation-related threads as follows: financial accounting regulation, analysis of individual pronouncements, SEC regulatory activity and its impact, international financial reporting standards, income tax reporting, and auditing.

In 2015, several journal publishers retracted more than 30 papers written by Dr. James E. Hunton (Dr. Hunton) and various other co-authors. Retractions in academic literatures are not entirely rare and they are best understood in terms of their ‘chain effect’ potential impact. There is a first-order effect, namely the findings in the retracted papers are no longer reliable. A second-order effect occurs through other papers that cited and relied upon certain findings in the retracted papers. This paper sets forth the recently retracted papers. It will also be useful in identifying second-order papers to assist editors, other reviewers, and researchers who otherwise may be unaware of retraction details as they are known at this time. This article sets forth Dr. Hunton's body of work with retractions noted. The article has several goals aimed at effective regulation of the accounting literature. First, it is a resource for researchers to determine whether a paper that they intend to cite has been retracted. Second, it encourages researchers to review and where feasible, replicate other papers authored by Dr. Hunton that have not been retracted to date in order to establish the legitimacy of those findings. Third, it encourages researchers to replicate or otherwise retest research questions in retracted papers so that reliable findings are made available to these questions. Fourth, at the second-order level, it encourages authors that have cited Dr. Hunton's papers to review their papers and where they deem it consistent with scholarly effort, restate their work. Similarly, editors of journals involved in the first- and second-order effects are encouraged to publish the additional analyses to reinforce the credibility of the literature. Fifth, an addition to the literature review process is suggested to assure that no papers in the chain of noted or cited work have been retracted. Finally and importantly, it reminds scholars of the importance of being diligent in their processes for producing, summarizing and retaining data and cross-reviewing data provided by and work completed by co-authors.

In this paper, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed articles published in The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries. The literature featured some strong regulation-related threads in 2015 including the foundations of financial accounting and reporting, international financial reporting standards, Sarbanes–Oxley and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Goodwill in the accounting context represents amounts paid in excess of the fair value of the identifiable net assets for a business acquisition. The accounting for goodwill has long been a subject of debate and remains so today. Indeed, the guidance for goodwill accounting has been significantly revised by regulators twice since 2001 (2001 and 2011). Despite these recent and significant revisions, the topic is back on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agenda as the FASB added a project to once again discuss the optimal treatment for goodwill ( Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2015 ). In this paper, we seek to inform this effort by describing the evolution of accounting standards for goodwill and then synthesizing and analyzing the academic literature on goodwill accounting and reporting. Based on this historical perspective and analysis of the literature, we then assess the strengths and weaknesses of different accounting approaches for goodwill, highlight the factors affecting the process of standard-setting on goodwill, and make recommendations. Our recommendations include recommendations for the FASB about optimal guidance and recommendations for academics concerning future academic research projects that would advance the goodwill accounting debate. Hence, this paper should be of interest to regulators and standard setters, academic researchers interested in mergers and acquisitions and goodwill, and financial statement preparers and users.

In this article, we synthesize, in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed articles published in The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries. The literature featured some strong regulation-related threads in 2014 including the foundations of financial reporting, international financial reporting standards, retrospectives on Sarbanes-Oxley and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ten years out, corporate governance and audit quality.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed articles published in The Accounting Review , Journal of Accounting Research , Journal of Accounting and Economics , Contemporary Accounting Research , Accounting Horizons , The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance , Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting , Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory , and Research in Accounting Regulation . We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries. The literature featured some strong regulation-related threads in 2013 including the foundations of financial reporting, the role of financial reporting in the financial crisis, accounting disclosure, financial reporting choices, International Financial Reporting Standards, and Sarbanes–Oxley and its impact on accounting and audit quality.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarize regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review , Journal of Accounting Research , Journal of Accounting and Economics , Contemporary Accounting Research , Accounting Horizons , The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance , Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting , Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory , and Research in Accounting Regulation . We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries. The literature featured some strong regulation-related threads in 2012 including the foundations of financial reporting, the role of financial reporting in the financial crisis, accounting disclosure, financial reporting choices, international financial reporting standards, and Sarbanes–Oxley and its impact on accounting and auditing quality.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory , and Research in Accounting Regulation . We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review , The Journal of Accounting Research , The Journal of Accounting and Economics , Accounting Horizons , The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance , The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting , Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory , and Research in Accounting Regulation . We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

In this paper we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, selected regulation-related findings and commentaries which appear in the 2008 academic literature. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries. This annotated bibliography contributes to the existing series appearing in recent volumes of this journal beginning in volume 18 and appearing regularly in each volume thereafter covering the research literature from 1999 through 2007. We have included academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. Other journals, most recently Contemporary Accounting Research, are added as the debate and materials have increased and matured.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

SYNOPSIS: This paper addresses the issues that confront the FASB and IASB in developing a new conceptual framework document. First, we suggest characteristics that a conceptual framework ought to exhibit. Most of these suggestions are based on our critique of the existing framework and the FASB-IASB work in progress. Second, we present a model framework that exhibits these characteristics. We emphasize up front that this framework is quite explicit. It goes to the heart of what a framework document should do: it places specific restrictions on what constitutes admissible accounting standards. The purpose of our effort is to stimulate broad discussion of alternative approaches to foundational documents and to offer a specific example of such an alternative approach.

SYNOPSIS: The Financial Accounting Standards Board (hereafter, FASB) and the International Accounting Standard Board (hereafter, IASB) issued a joint discussion paper titled Preliminary Views on Financial Statement Presentation. The Boards are seeking comments on whether their proposed model for financial statement presentation would improve the usefulness of the financial statement information for financial decision makers. This paper sets forth the American Accounting Association Financial Accounting Standards Committee (hereafter, the committee) summary comments as well as responses to several of the FASB’s and IASB’s (hereafter, jointly mentioned, the Boards) specific objectives and principles-related questions. Overall, the committee believes that the model has several appealing features, but also has several potential problems. Many of the problems discussed related to potential learning impediments for users to adapt to the new presentation format.

SYNOPSIS: The Securities and Exchange Commission (hereafter, SEC) issued a call for comment on a proposal to adopt a roadmap for potential use of international financial reporting standards (hereafter, IFRS) by U.S. companies. We comment on five key issues raised by the SEC proposal. First, we propose that the need for a global regulator is overstated. A global regulator is unlikely to help achieve the stated goals of comparability and consistency of financial reporting on a global basis. We favor allowing U.S. companies to choose use of U.S. GAAP or IFRS rather than mandating one global monopoly set of standards. Second, we agree that the focus on auditing is a very relevant issue that deserves more attention from standard setters. Gains from adopting principles-based accounting standards such as IFRS are likely to be realized only if auditors are also principles-based. Third, while we have serious concerns about governance and financing mechanisms of the International Accounting Standards Board (hereafter, IASB), we recommend that all regulatory actions cannot be held to a standstill while structural changes are made to the IASB. Fourth, we are not in favor of requiring reconciliation schedules from U.S. companies using IFRS. We view such reconciliations as being costly and unnecessary. Fifth, we recommend that the SEC pay more explicit attention to the educational and professional judgment consequences of its proposals.

SYNOPSIS: The Canadian Accounting Standards Board (hereafter, AcSB) recently issued an exposure draft to adopt separate GAAP for private enterprises. This new GAAP is justified as being consistent with the current FASB/IASB conceptual framework, but is sensitive to the different cost-benefit considerations facing private entities. We view this proposal as being innovative and responsive to the differential reporting needs of private entities. In this article we explain our reasoning and conclusions on several issues raised by the exposure draft starting with a discussion about the need for a separate conceptual framework for private enterprises. We sketch a preliminary conceptual framework that could be used to develop and justify the type of changes proposed in this exposure draft. We then discuss key issues raised in the exposure draft such as reliance on historical cost as the key basis of measurement, the significant reduction in disclosure requirements for private enterprises, and stopping the emerging issues committee from providing implementation guidance (no EICs). We also comment on the mechanism for financing the standard-setting board, the need to ensure compatibility between accounting and auditing standards, and a process for adjusting the education system to support this new private enterprise GAAP.

SYNOPSIS: The accounting academy has been long recognized as the premier developer of entry-level talent for the accounting profession and the major provider of executive education via master’s-level curricula and customized executive education courses. However, the impact that the academy’s collective ideas have had on the efficiency and effectiveness of practice has been less recognized. In this paper, we summarize key contributions of academic accounting research to practice in financial accounting, auditing, tax, regulation, managerial accounting, and information systems. Our goal is to increase awareness of the effects of academic accounting research. We believe that if this impact is more fully recognized, the practitioner community will be even more willing to invest in academe and help universities address the escalating costs of training and retaining doctoral-trained research faculty. Furthermore, we believe that this knowledge will attract talented scholars into the profession. To this end, we encourage our colleagues to refer liberally to research successes such as those cited in this paper in their classes, in their textbooks, and in their presentations to nonacademic audiences.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is the fourth in a series of bibliographies that will summarize regulation-related academic research for at least the period 1990 and forward. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

The Financial Accounting Standards Committee of the American Accounting Association (the Committee) is charged with responding to requests for comments from standard-setters on issues related to financial reporting. The Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) released for public comment on December 18, 2007 with a response period ending on February 10, 2008, “Proposed Changes to Oversight, Structure, and Operations of the FAF, FASB, and GASB” (the proposal). This commentary concerns four important public policy issues in the proposal with the most relevance for accounting standard setting: 1. Reduce the size of the FASB from seven members to five; 2. Retain the FASB simple majority voting requirement; 3. Realign the FASB composition; and 4. Provide the FASB Chair with decision making authority to set the FASB technical agenda. On February 26, 2008, the FAF accepted all four proposals that we commented on. Despite their approval by the FAF, we maintain that each of these proposals not only does not improve, but potentially weakens the standard setting model. We encourage the FAF to renew its commitment to a member selection model designed to create an independent standard setting board. The four proposals put forth by the FAF can only increase the political nature of the FASB, further concentrate decision making power, and create higher barriers to achieve general acceptance of accounting standards. We maintain that the FAF should move in the opposite direction. In particular, we recommend that the FAF not reduce the FASB size and adopt a supermajority requirement not a simple voting requirement. If the majority cannot convince other members of the FASB about their views, how can we expect general acceptance of accounting standards in society? We also want a FASB that is open to more diverse views and more democratic. We urge the FAF to renew its commitment to openness and engagement with the accounting community instead of becoming more elitist and further concentrating power in the hands of a powerful chairman and a smaller standard setting board.

SYNOPSIS: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a call for comment on a proposal to accept financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. Accounting researchers have attempted to assess the quality of IFRS using different methods and criteria. While we are skeptical of drawing direct conclusions about the SEC’s proposal based on this research, there is adequate evidence that both IFRS and U.S. GAAP provide useful information to investors and other users of financial statements. Moreover, we see no conclusive research evidence that financial reports prepared using U.S. GAAP are better than reports prepared using IFRS. The prudent approach when faced with alternatives with no clear difference in quality is to promote competition among them, which supports adopting the SEC’s proposal to permit foreign private issuers a choice between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. Furthermore, to help improve U.S. and international GAAP through standards-setting competition, we recommend that the Commission extend the choice of IFRS to U.S. companies, and require all companies to indicate clearly whether they are filing under U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Finally, we recommend that the Commission and its staff investigate and seek feedback on the educational consequences of its proposed actions. This attention will help educators to better prepare future professionals to implement these proposed regulatory changes.

In this article, we synthesize, in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is the third in a series of bibliographies that will summarize regulation-related academic research for at least the period from 1990 forward. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings, and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is the second in a planned series of bibliographies that will summarize regulation-related academic research for at least the period 1990 and forward. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

Goodwill in the accounting context represents amounts paid in excess of the fair value of the identifiable net assets for a business acquisition. The accounting for goodwill has long been a subject of debate and remains so today. Indeed, the guidance for goodwill accounting has been significantly revised twice since 2001 (2001 and 2011). Despite these recent and significant revisions, the topic is back on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) agenda as the FASB added a project to once again discuss the optimal treatment for goodwill (FASB, 2015). In this paper, we seek to inform this effort by describing the evolution of accounting standards for goodwill and then synthesizing and analyzing the academic literature on goodwill accounting and reporting. Based on this historical perspective and analysis of the literature, we then assess the strengths and weaknesses of different accounting approaches for goodwill, highlight the factors affecting the process of standard-setting on goodwill, and make recommendations. Our recommendations include recommendations for the FASB about optimal guidance and recommendations for academics concerning future academic research projects that would advance the goodwill accounting debate. Hence, this paper should be of interest to academic researchers interested in mergers and acquisitions and goodwill, to financial statement preparers and users, and to standard setters.

PurposeTo develop theoretical frameworks to discuss high profile scandals, where responsible accountants and other executives could have saved themselves, many investors and others severe personal and financial loss by considering the costs of improper or immoral behavior. These cases emphasize the importance of ethics driving accountants' decisions.Design/methodology/approachThe paper discusses these ethical lapses in light of applying Kohlberg's models, biblical examples from the Old and New Testaments and the Koran, and other ethical systems.FindingsThe paper shows that this concept is not new. Throughout history, people have taken actions that cost them their freedom, their money and most importantly, their good names. Upon reflection, many of these people are astounded at the seriousness of their action given what little they had to gain from continued involvement. In reinforcing lessons that should be learned from cases of business malfeasance and highlighting many well‐known accounting and other scandals, we develop recurrent themes in the nature of business scandals and show that many people are responsible for or complicit in the malfeasance. These individuals could have prevented the fraud or minimized any adverse impact if they had considered their behavior ex ante. We show that the employees portrayed demonstrated very low‐levels of ethical development and seemed to underestimate the probability of getting caught and the resulting punishment. We also elicit many reasons from several viewpoints for not becoming involved in fraud.Research limitations/implicationsIt is hoped that the next generation of business leaders and middle level staff alike will consider the results/messages of this paper when faced with ethical dilemmas.Practical implicationsThe paper concludes that the best internal control in a business structure remains the hiring and training of morally upstanding employees and managers who recognize the values of their good names before temptations arise. Incentive plans can encourage ethical behavior.Originality/valuePractitioners must consider fully the potential consequences of their actions no matter how small the perceived probability of a bad outcome.

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries published in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is the first in a planned series of bibliographies that will summarize regulation-related academic research for at least the period 1990 and forward. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review , The Journal of Accounting Research , The Journal of Accounting and Economics , Accounting Horizons , The Journal of Accounting , Auditing & Finance , The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , The Journal of Business , Finance & Accounting , Research in Accounting Regulation , and the Social Science Research Network . We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.

Firms that meet certain criteria can register debt or equity securities for issuance any time during the subsequent two years. This process is known as shelf registration. Key shelf registration qualification criteria include $75 million market capitalization held by outsiders, timely SEC filings, investment-grade ratings of debt, no defaults on debt payments, and listing on national stock exchanges. During the last few years, several visible companies have suffered quick financial collapses. Many of these companies had debt securities available for issuance from the shelf at the time of collapse. In this study, we examine shelf registrants to address whether shelf registrants of debt, on average, are riskier firms than those that do not have shelf registrations. Using various measures of risk, we assess the risk profiles of shelf registrants versus non-shelf registrants. We find that shelf registrant firms are more highly leveraged, slightly less profitable, and have greater bankruptcy probability than non-shelf registrant firms. Collectively, these findings raise concerns about the overall safety of shelf registrations, and suggest the need for regulators to reconsider the appropriate qualifications for shelf registration. The findings also suggest that investors and analysts should beware of the additional risk posed by the average firm that has shelf-registered debt securities.

As recent accounting scandals have demonstrated, an understanding of the accounting rules underlying financial information is important before analysts or users of financial statements can rely on that information. Accounting guidance comes from numerous sources. We summarize the sources of generally accepted accounting principles, explain the hierarchy of these sources of guidance, and indicate where analysts and users of financial statements can find the electronic and printed texts of the rules.

In the original exposure draft, Business Combinations and Intangible Assets, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed that companies be allowed to report a second per share earnings number that excludes goodwill amortization. Subsequently, the FASB has proposed that goodwill not be amortized at all. Instead, it will be written down when impaired. In this study, we assess the information content of earnings excluding amortization of intangibles relative to two traditional performance measures: earnings before extraordinary items and cash flow from operations. We find that the relative informativeness of earnings before amortization and earnings before extraordinary items do not differ significantly. We also find, consistent with prior research, that both earnings before amortization and earnings before extraordinary items are more informative than cash flow from operations. These findings suggest that goodwill amortization disclosures were not decision-useful and, therefore, support the FASB's revised position.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 96 requires that firms rescind stock repurchase plans to receive pooling treatment for a business acquisition. In this study, we document the additional opportunity cost to pooling imposed by SAB No. 96 and revisit the purchase vs. pooling question with the additional consideration. Specifically, we examine whether firms should rescind or forgo stock repurchase plans to qualify to pool or simply accept purchase accounting treatment for mergers. We begin by establishing why firms choose to pool. We find that, consistent with anecdotal evidence in the financial press, firms pool to avoid the decreased earnings caused by amortization of goodwill that is recorded in a purchase. Next, given this motivation for pooling, we examine the purchase vs. pooling decision with the additional consideration imposed by the prohibition of stock repurchases. Our results suggest that forgoing stock repurchases to pool may not be in the best interest of shareholders. These findings support the decision of the FASB to eliminate pooling as an alternative.

The Canadian Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) issued an exposure draft on a proposal to adopt a separate 'Made in Canada' GAAP for private enterprises. This new GAAP is justified as being consistent with the current FASB/IASB conceptual framework, but as being responsive to the different cost/benefit considerations facing private entities vis-a-vis public entities. We viewed this proposal as being innovative and responsive to the differential financial reporting needs of private entities. We proposed that the AcSB should develop a separate conceptual framework to guide the future evolution of this new GAAP and not rely only on cost-benefit considerations. We sketched a preliminary conceptual framework that could be used to develop and justify the type of changes proposed in this exposure draft. We then responded to the specific questions asked in the exposure draft and were very supportive of the concepts proposed. First, we support the proposed GAAP which is based on historical cost with very minimal reliance on fair values. Second, we expressed agreement with the proposal to reduce the amount of required disclosures for private enterprises given their significant economic differences from public companies. Third, we agreed with the proposal to drop provision of significant guidance and especially (ex-post) emerging issues committee interpretations (EIC’s). We are in favour of a principles based GAAP and the provision of detailed authoritative guidance is not conducive to professional judgment. We also suggested a series of transition issues that the AcSB should consider including the mechanism for financing the standard setting board, the need to ensure compatibility between accounting and auditing standards, and a process for adjusting the education system (both in Universities and professional exams) to support this new private enterprise GAAP. This comment was developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Committee of the American Accounting Association and does not represent an official position of the American Accounting Association.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB's) and the International Accounting Standard Board's (IASB's) issued a joint Discussion Paper entitled, Preliminary Views on Financial Statement Presentation. The Boards are seeking comments on whether their proposed model for financial statement presentation would improve the usefulness of the financial statement information for financial decision makers. This paper sets forth the AAA's Financial Accounting Standards Committee's summary comments as well as responses to several of the Boards' specific objectives and principles-related questions. Overall, we believe that the model has several appealing qualities, but also has several potential problems. Many of the problems that we discuss related to potential learning impediments for users to adapt to the new presentation format.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a call for comment on a proposal to adopt a Roadmap for potential use of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) by U.S. Companies. We comment on five key issues raised by the SEC proposal. First, we propose that the need for a global regulator is overstated. A global regulator is unlikely to help achieve the stated goals of comparability and consistency of financial reporting on a global basis. We favor allowing U.S. companies to choose use of U.S. GAAP or IFRS rather than mandating one global monopoly set of standards. Second, we agree that the focus on auditing is a very relevant issue that deserves more attention from standard setters. Gains from adopting principles based accounting standards such as IFRS are likely to be realized only if auditors are also principles based. Third, while we have serious concerns about governance and financing mechanisms of IASB, we recommend that all regulatory actions cannot be held to a standstill while structural changes are made to the IASB. Fourth, we are not in favor of requiring reconciliation schedules from U.S. companies using IFRS. We view such reconciliations as being costly and unnecessary. Fifth, we recommend that the SEC pay more explicit attention to the educational and professional judgment consequences of its proposals.This comment was developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Committee of the American Accounting Association and does not represent an official position of the American Accounting Association.

The FASB and the IASB recently issued a joint discussion paper entitled, Preliminary Views on Revenue Recognition in Contracts with Customers. The Boards requested comments on whether their proposed model for revenue recognition would improve the usefulness of the financial statement information for financial decision makers. This paper sets forth the AAA's Financial Accounting Standards Committee's responses to several of the Boards' specific questions. In summary, we support the Boards' proposed comprehensive revenue recognition standard based on the following options: (1) the customer consideration approach (based on initial contract price measurement); (2) no recognition of revenue at contract inception (by assigning the initial contract price to performance obligations); (3) allocation of the transaction price to multiple performance obligations based on the relative stand-alone prices of each performance obligation. We also recommend that the Boards carefully consider the following clarifications as they develop the final exposure draft. The definition of a contract should include the words legally enforceable to describe the contract. A performance obligation must be verifiable. While the transfer of an asset to the customer or the acceptance of a service by the customer normally signals the recognition of revenue, we encourage the Boards to carefully consider situations (like long-term construction or mining) when the completion of intermediate performance obligations could trigger revenue recognition prior to the transfer of title. Absent special consideration of these situations, companies may be forced to re-write contracts in sub-optimal ways in an effort to recognize revenue continuously throughout a long-term construction project or in the process of mining or farming. Consider the difficulties that may arise in allocating the initial transaction price to multiple performance obligation contracts when the individual performance obligations are not normally sold on a stand-alone basis.

Standard setters and most academics maintain that accounting standards ought to rest on a set of guiding principles stated explicitly in a “conceptual framework.” The FASB and IASB are currently involved in a project to refine conceptual framework documents developed earlier. At this point, it is not clear what their final product will look like; its defining characteristics as well as the substantive content can only be surmised. This paper addresses the issues that FASB and IASB face, including the question of what a conceptual framework should be all about. First, we suggest characteristics that a conceptual framework ought to exhibit. Most of these suggestions are based on our critique of the existing framework and the FASB-IASB work in progress. Second, we present a model framework that meets our criteria. We emphasize up front that this framework is quite explicit. It goes to the heart of what a framework document should do: it places specific restrictions on what constitutes admissible accounting standards. The purpose of our effort is to stimulate broad discussion of alternative approaches to foundational documents and to offer a specific example of such an alternative approach.

The Financial Accounting Standards Committee of the American Accounting Association (the Committee) is charged with responding to requests for comments from standard-setters on issues related to financial reporting. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) recently requested comments on its Preliminary Views on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity (PV). The committee believes that the PV introduces concepts and definitions involving financial statement elements that more properly would be considered at the conceptual framework level. Therefore, the committee respectfully requests that FASB take no further action regarding the proposed standard exposed in the Preliminary Views on Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity until the conceptual and definitional issues are resolved at the conceptual framework level.

The Financial Accounting Standards Committee of the American Accounting Association (the Committee) is charged with responding to requests for comments from standard-setters on issues related to financial reporting. The Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) recently released for public comment, Proposed Changes to Oversight, Structure, and Operations of the FAF, FASB, and GASB (the proposal). Our commentary concerns four issues in the proposal which have the most relevance for accounting standard setting: 1. Reduce the size of the FASB from seven members to five; 2. Retain the FASB simple majority voting requirement; 3. Realign the FASB composition; and 4. Provide the FASB Chair with decision-making authority to set the FASB technical agenda.We disagree with all four of these proposals. The current FASB is set up consistent with a political appointment model rather than a model designed to create an independent standard setting board. The four proposals put forth by the FAF increase the political nature of the FASB, further concentrate decision making power, and make it difficult to get general acceptance of accounting standards. We propose that the FAF move in the opposite direction. In particular, we recommend that the FAF not reduce the FASB size, and adopt a supermajority requirement not a simple voting requirement. If the majority cannot convince other members of the FASB about their views, how can we attain general acceptance of accounting standards in society? We also want a FASB that is open to more diverse views and more democratic. We urge the FAF to increase its engagement with the accounting community instead of becoming more elitist and further concentrating power in the hands of a powerful chairman and a small standard setting board.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a call for comment on a proposal to accept financial statements prepared in accordance with international financial reporting standards (IFRS) without reconciliation to U.S. GAAP. Accounting researchers have attempted to assess the quality of IFRS using different methods and criteria. While we are skeptical of drawing direct conclusions about the SEC's proposal based on this research, there is adequate evidence that both IFRS and U.S. GAAP provide useful information to investors and other users of financial statements. Moreover, we see no conclusive research evidence that financial reports prepared using U.S. GAAP are better than reports prepared using IFRS. The prudent approach when faced with alternatives with no clear difference in quality is to promote competition among them, which supports adopting the SEC's proposal to permit foreign private issuers a choice between IFRS and U.S. GAAP. Therefore, to help improve U.S. and international GAAP through standards-setting competition, we recommend that the Commission also consider extending the choice of IFRS to U.S. companies, and require all companies to indicate clearly whether they are filing under U.S. GAAP or IFRS. Finally, we recommend that the Commission and its staff investigate and seek feedback on the educational consequences of its proposed actions. This attention will help educators better prepare future professionals to implement these proposed regulatory changes.

Many firms that take restructuring charges reverse a portion of those restructuring charge accruals in a later quarter. These reversals increase net income, often substantially. In this study, I investigate whether restructuring charge reversals are associated with incentives to meet or exceed analysts' forecasts, avoid earnings declines relative to prior-year levels, and avoid losses. I examine both the decision to record a reversal and the amount of the reversal, using a sample of 121 reversals recorded between 1990 and 1999. The results suggest that some firms record reversals to beat analysts' forecasts and to avoid reporting net losses. There is also some evidence that firms record reversals to avoid earnings declines. Overall, the results are consistent with firms using restructuring accrual reversals to manage earnings.

In this paper, we examine the relative information content of two cash earnings measures (earnings with amortization of intangibles added back and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), one traditional accrual accounting earnings measure (earnings before extraordinary items), and one traditional cash flow measure (cash flow from operations). Our research is motivated by the increasing use of these cash earnings disclsoures and the perceived additional value they provide. Overall, we find results consistent with previous research that nothing beats accrual earnings in its ability to explain market-adjusted returns. In addition, and again consistent with prior literature, we find that as each measure moves further away from accrual accounting earnings and closer to cash flows, the explanatory power of the measure decreases. We do find, however, that the information content rank ordering of our four measures reverse when we perform our tests on only firms' loss-year observations, although there is no statistical significance between the measures in their relative information content. We further explore the loss-year sub-sample by examining cases in which the loss includes a large amortization charge. Within this sub-sample, the cash flow measures dominate. In fact, each of the two cash earnings measures provides significantly greater information content than does accounting earnings. The provides evidence that these disclosures may have value in certain settings.