The Development and Status of Enforcement in the European Union

Berger, Axel

doi:10.1080/17449480.2010.485388

Cited by 36 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The enforcement system in some European countries has been criticised for being checklist based (Berger, 2010). Instead of focusing on disclosure compliance, it has been suggested that the enforcement bodies should focus on whether management's estimations are reasonable (Hellman, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Swedish and Dutch listed companies’ compliance with IAS 36 paragraph 134

Hartwig

2013

Int J Discl Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the extent to which companies listed on the Nasdaq OMX (NOMX) and the Euronext Amsterdam (EA), in their 2005 and 2008 annual reports, complied with the disclosure requirements in IAS 36 paragraph 134, as well as the factors that explain why some companies complied with the standard to a higher extent than did other ones. Swedish and Dutch listed companies are chosen as the accounting oversight system differs between the countries. The relationship between the dependent variable, that is, information disclosed in accordance with IAS 36 paragraph 134 in the annual reports in Swedish and Dutch listed companies, and the independent variables, that is, accounting oversight, auditing company, size, leverage, future prospects, industry and learning, is examined. The results reveal that Swedish companies listed on the NOMX were more compliant than their Dutch counterparts in 2005, possibly because of the (historically) weak Dutch institutional oversight system. The compliance level seems to have increased in both Swedish and Dutch companies over time, thus indicating learning. In 2008, there was no significant difference in compliance level between Sweden and the Netherlands, which suggests convergence. Size significantly affected the compliance level in Sweden only, and leverage affected the compliance level in the Netherlands only. Moreover, non-financial companies were more compliant in both countries. The independent variables auditing company and future prospects did not seem to have a significant effect on the compliance level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Swedish and Dutch listed companies’ compliance with IAS 36 paragraph 134

Hartwig

2013

Int J Discl Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is a particularly relevant case in light of prior evidence showing that the capital-market benefits around IFRS adoption are concentrated in the EU (e.g., Hail and Leuz, 2007;Daske et al, 2008;Li, 2010). Starting with the FSAP in 1999, the EU instituted a series of directives geared towards improving its financial market regulation (e.g., FSAP, 1999;CRA, 2009 (Berger, 2010). However, the IAS Regulation is not specific as to…”

Section: Prior Evidence and Alternative Explanations For Capital-markmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But it should be noted that it is generally only one component of the enforcement change and it is often accompanied by other elements such as an increase in penalties and more resources for the enforcement body. Moreover, the set of enforcement changes varies among countries (see Berger, 2010, for a discussion of the variation in enforcement within the EU).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandatory IFRS Reporting and Changes in Enforcement

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, reporting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) became mandatory in many countries. The capital-market effects around this change have been extensively studied, but their sources are not yet well understood. This study aims to distinguish between several potential explanations for the observed capital-market effects. We find that, across all countries, mandatory IFRS reporting had little impact on liquidity. The liquidity effects around IFRS introduction are concentrated in the European Union (EU) and limited to five EU countries that concurrently made substantive changes in reporting enforcement. There is little evidence of liquidity benefits in IFRS countries without substantive enforcement changes even when they have strong legal and regulatory systems. Moreover, we find similar liquidity effects for firms that experience enforcement changes but do not concurrently switch to IFRS. Thus, changes in reporting enforcement or (unobserved) factors associated with these changes play a critical role for the observed liquidity benefits after mandatory IFRS adoption. In contrast, the change in accounting standards seems to have had little effect on market liquidity. AbstractIn recent years, reporting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) became mandatory in many countries. The capital-market effects around this change have been extensively studied, but their sources are not yet well understood. This study aims to distinguish between several potential explanations for the observed capital-market effects. We find that, across all countries, mandatory IFRS reporting had little impact on liquidity. The liquidity effects around IFRS introduction are concentrated in the European Union (EU) and limited to five EU countries that concurrently made substantive changes in reporting enforcement. There is little evidence of liquidity benefits in IFRS countries without substantive enforcement changes even when they have strong legal and regulatory systems. Moreover, we find similar liquidity effects for firms that experience enforcement changes but do not concurrently switch to IFRS. Thus, changes in reporting enforcement or (unobserved) factors associated with these changes play a critical role for the observed liquidity benefits after mandatory IFRS adoption. In contrast, the change in accounting standards seems to have had little effect on market liquidity.JEL classification: G14, G15, G30, K22, M41, M48

show abstract

“…The roots of deficiency are to be sought in imperfections of the institutional environment in the region, including the enforcement regime. The importance of high quality institutions as well as working enforcement is highlighted by many studies (e.g., Jeanjean and Stolowy, 2008;Lee Lee et al, 2008;Berger, 2010;Li, 2010;Houqe et al, 2012;Pownall and Wieczynska, 2012;Ahmed et al, 2013;Glaum et al, 2013). The unfavourable outcomes of accounting harmonisation in transition countries were predicted already before the mandatory IFRS adoption took place.…”

Section: Basic Economic Data For Cee Countriesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Specifics of IFRS Adoption by Central and Eastern European Countries: Evidence from Research

Procházka¹

2017

Scientific Annals of Economics and Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reviews recent literature on the specifics of adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by the new EU members from the Central and Eastern Europe. Despite being members of the EU or OECD, the transition to a standard developed economy has not yet finished. The first part of the paper presents macroeconomic statistics and capital market data, which underline a unique economic structure of the region (relative unimportance of capital markets for raising capital, strong dependence on foreign direct investments) combined with the lacks in institutional environment. Under such conditions, the economic consequences of IFRS adoption can be unpredictable and adverse. The second part of the paper analyses the reflection of specifics of the IFRS adoption in the CEE region in research studies covered by the Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database. The analysis reveals (a) cross-country disproportion in the research coverage of the area; (b) relatively low coverage of the IFRS research focusing on these transition countries in top journals.

show abstract

The Development and Status of Enforcement in the European Union

Cited by 36 publications

References 1 publication

Swedish and Dutch listed companies’ compliance with IAS 36 paragraph 134

Swedish and Dutch listed companies’ compliance with IAS 36 paragraph 134

Mandatory IFRS Reporting and Changes in Enforcement

Specifics of IFRS Adoption by Central and Eastern European Countries: Evidence from Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About