Abstract
While the regulatory push towards principles-based standards in the United States and elsewhere is based on the notion that principles-based standards are more informative to capital market participants relative to rules-based standards, we do not know how principles-based standards impact accounting conservatism for U.S. firms. Using a measure of a firm's reliance on principles-based versus rules-based standards, we contribute to the literature by empirically examining the relation between conditional accounting conservatism and use of principles-based standards for U.S. firms. We find that conditional accounting conservatism is lower for firms relying more on principles-based standards, and this association is more pronounced for firms with greater earnings management incentives. However, the negative relation between conditional conservatism and use of principles-based standards is mitigated when there are contracting or litigation concerns. Additional analysis shows that reliance on principles-based standards also reduces unconditional accounting conservatism. Our findings are robust to using alternative measures of accounting conservatism, firm fixed effects, and a difference-in-difference model. Our evidence informs the FASB and the SEC that adoption of principles-based standards comes at a cost and has implications for regulators, auditors, analysts, investors, and others.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.