The present study investigates the role of accounting tradition and managerial opportunism when companies are given by IFRS the option to choose whether to book accounting items following the historical cost or the fair value method. We hypothesize that accounting tradition still plays a role in the choice, with Continental European companies preferring the historical cost and the Anglo-Saxon companies choosing more often the fair value. We also hypothesize that managers will act opportunistically, choosing the historical cost or the fair value method in order to influence the performance of the company and/or their remuneration. By using a hand-collected sample of 480 companies belonging to Continental Europe (Italy, Germany and France) and Anglo-Saxon countries (United Kingdom and Australia) we find support for the first hypothesis while we reject the second hypothesis. Accounting tradition does still play a role in the accounting choice, while managerial opportunism does not.
1. Ball, R. (2006), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors, Accounting and business research, International accounting policy forum, pp. 5–27.
2. Ball, R., Brown, P., (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, 6, pp. 159–178.
3. Ball, R., Kothari, S.P., and Robin, A., (2000). The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of accounting and economics, 29 (1), pp. 1–51.
4. Ball, R., Ashok, R. and Shuang Wu, J. (2003). Incentives versus standards: properties of accounting income in four East Asian countries and implications for acceptance of IAS. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36, pp. 235-270.
5. Ball, R. and Shivakumar, L. (2005), Earnings quality in UK private firms, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, pp. 83-128.
6. Bamber, L.S., Jiang, J., Petroni K., Wang I. (2010), Comprehensive Income: Who’s afraid of performance reporting?, The Accounting Review, 85 (1), pp. 97-126.
7. Barth, M. (2006). Including estimates of the future in today’s financial statements. Accounting Horizons, 20, pp. 271–285.
8. Barth, M., & Clinch, G. (1998). Revalued financial tangible and intangible assets: associations with share prices and non-market based value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 36 (Suppl.), pp. 199–233.
9. Barth, M.E., Landsman, W.R. and Lang, M. (2008), International accounting standards and accounting quality, Journal of Accounting Research, 46 (3), pp. 467-498.
10. Barth, M.E., Konchitchki, Y. and Landsman, W. R. (2009), Cost of capital and earnings transparency, Working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
11. Baskerville, R. and Evans, L., (2011). The darkening glass: issues for translation of IFRS. Edinburgh: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
12. Beaver, W.H., Engel, E.E., (1996). Discretionary behavior with respect to allowances for loan losses and the behavior of security prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 22, pp. 177–206.
13. Berger, A., (2010). The development and status of enforcement in the European Union. Accounting in Europe, 7 (1), pp. 15–35.
14. Bosse, D. and Philips, R. (2016). Agency theory and bounded self-interest, Academy of Management Review, 41, pp. 276-297.
15. Botosan, C.A., (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 72, pp. 323–349.
16. Brown, P. and Tarca, A., (2005). A commentary on issues relating to the enforcement of international financial reporting standards in the EU. European accounting review, 14 (1), pp. 181–212.
17. Burgstahler, D., Dichev, I., (1997). Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24, pp. 99–126.
18. Bushman, R., Piotroski, J. (2006). Financial reporting incentives for conservative accounting: the influence of legal and political institutions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42 (1-2), pp. 107-148.
19. Cairns, D., Massoudi, D., Taplin, R., and Tarca, A., (2011). IFRS fair value measurement and accounting policy choice in the United Kingdom and Australia. The British accounting review, 43 (1), pp. 1–21.
20. Camfferman, K. and Zeff, S.A., (2006). Financial reporting and global capital markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Christensen, H. and Nikolaev, V., (2013). Does fair value accounting for non-financial assets pass the market test?. Review of Accounting Studies, 18, pp. 734-775.
22. Cole, V., Branson, J. and Breesch, D., (2011). Determinants influencing the de facto comparability of European IFRS financial statements. SSRN Working Paper.
23. Dahlgren, J. and Nilsson, S.-A., (2012). Can translations achieve comparability? The case of translating IFRSs into Swedish. Accounting in Europe, 9 (1), pp. 39–59.
24. Daske, Holger (2006), Economic benefits of adopting IFRS or US GAAP - have the expected costs of equity capital really decreased?, Journal of Busines
To cite this article: Fasan, M., Marcon, C. (2018). Accounting Choice under IFRS: The Role of Accounting Tradition and Managerial Opportunism, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences 8 (3): 209-223.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
