We thank Lakshmanan Shivakumar (the editor) and an anonymous referee for their insightful suggestions and constructive feedback. We acknowledge the helpful comments of Rashad Abdel-Khalik, Jan Barton, Sudipta Basu, Katheryn Bewley, Ulf Brüggemann, Maria Correia, Lucie Courteau, Dan Givoly, Steven Huddart, Bjørn Jørgensen, Bin Ke, Urška Kosi, Garen Markarian, Peter Pope, Karthik Ramanna, Bill Rees, Shyam Sunder, İrem Tuna, Pauline Weetman, Steven Zeff, and seminar participants at the University of What Drives the Comparability Effect of Mandatory IFRS Adoption?ABSTRACT: We investigate the effects of mandatory IFRS adoption on the comparability of financial accounting information. Using two comparability proxies based on De Franco et al. [2011] and a comparability proxy based on the degree of information transfer, our results suggest that the overall comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption is marginal. We hypothesize that firm-level heterogeneity in IFRS compliance explains the limited comparability effect. To test this conjecture, we first hand-collect data on IFRS compliance for a sample of German and Italian firms and find that firm-, region-, and country-level incentives systematically shape IFRS compliance. We then use the identified compliance determinants to explain the variance in the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption and find it to vary systematically with firm-level compliance determinants, suggesting that only firms with high compliance incentives experience substantial increases in comparability. Moreover, we document that firms from countries with tighter reporting enforcement experience larger IFRS comparability effects, and that public firms adopting IFRS become less comparable to local GAAP private firms from the same country.

No abstract

No abstract

In their current framework project, the IASB and the FASB identify decision usefulness as the objective of financial reporting. Unfortunately, accounting research has neither yet come up with an undisputed measure of decision usefulness, nor with a satisfying method to rank competing measurement concepts, such as fair value or historical cost, with regard to their relative decision usefulness. Thus, assessing the decision usefulness of different accounting measurement concepts ultimately poses an empirical question. We provide evidence to this question by surveying an important user group, namely professional investors and their advisors, about their opinions on the decision usefulness of different accounting measurement concepts. We find that our respondents clearly differentiate between mark-to-market and mark-to-model fair values. While they consistently rank mark-to-market fair values as most decision-useful, they generally rank mark-to-model fair values as least decision-useful. In addition, the ranking differs across asset classes.

We review the academic literature on the use of financial reporting information by capital providers. We classify our findings by investor type and by information objective. While most capital providers use accounting information, our survey indicates that they do so in a variety of ways with financial reporting information competing with other sources of information. We also find that information intermediaries are influential in both credit and equity markets, making the identification of a typical target 'user' inherently difficult. Our main findings question the underlying objective of the Conceptual Framework to guide the development of standards for general-purpose financial statements to provide a typical knowledgeable investor with a true and fair view about the reporting entity. Finally, we identify gaps in the literature and suggest areas where future research can help inform important academic and policy debates.