Search results

This paper provides a quantitative review of the literature on the repercussions of idiosyncratic information on firms’ cost of equity (CoE) capital. In total, I review the results of 113 unique studies examining the CoE effects of information Quantity, Precision and Asymmetry. My results suggest that the association between firm-specific information and CoE is subject to moderate effects. First, the link between Quantity and CoE is moderated by disclosure types and country-level factors in that firms in comparatively weakly regulated countries tend to enjoy up to four times greater CoE benefits from more expansive disclosure—depending on the type of disclosure—than firms in strongly regulated markets. Second, a negative relationship between Precision and CoE is only significant in studies using non-accrual quality proxies for Precision and risk factor-based (RFB)/valuation model-based (VMB) proxies for CoE. Third, almost all VMB studies confirm the positive association between Asymmetry and CoE, but there is notable variation in the conclusions reached when ex post CoE measurers are used.

The study critically evaluates the theory of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) implementation in an attempt to provide directions for future research. Using the extensive structured review of literature using the Scopus database tool, the study reviewed 79 articles, and in particular the topic-related 57 articles were analysed. Nine journals contribute to 51% of articles (29 of 57 articles). In particular, the three journals published 15 articles: Critical Perspectives on Accounting (7), Accounting, Organizations and Society (4), and Journal of Applied Accounting Research (4). In total, 83% (47 of 57) of the articles were published 2009–2018. A total of 1,168 citations were found from 45 articles since 12 articles were without citations. The highest cited authors were Ball (2006) – 410 citations, Kothari, Ramanna, and Skinner (2010) – 135 citations, and Napier (1989) – 85 citations. In particular, five theories have been used widely: institutional theory (13), accounting theory (6), agency theory (3), positive accounting theory (3), and process theory (2). Future studies’ focus could be on theory implications in IFRS adoption/implementation studies in a country or a group of countries’ experience. Future studies could also focus on various theories rather depending on a single theory (i.e. institutional theory).

Effective internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) should either prevent or enable correction of any material misstatement in a firm’s financial statements. Independent auditors, guided by professional standards, prepare an ICFR audit report, which provides a gauge by which the public can evaluate the reliability of a firm’s financial information. A firm manager may be tempted to misstate financial statements if he/she perceives a substantial reward for doing so. This study examines whether managers and firms are rewarded for misstating their financial statements in situations where there are incentives to do so, specifically, when an industry-leading peer is fraudulently inflating its reported earnings. The authors test to see if managers experience an increase in compensation as a result of misstatement. The authors also test to see if their firms benefit from misstating via changes to their cost of capital. Results suggest that neither managers nor their firms benefit from managing earnings by misstating financial statements. These findings are important, because a manager who ex ante understands that misstating will not lead to benefits personally or his/her firm is less likely to misstate in the first place.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.