Some Observations on Research on the Benefits
to Nations of Adopting IFRSPHILIP BROWN *Australian School of Business, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES andBusiness School, THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACTThis paper has three aims: to summarise, brief ly, key findings of research on the benefitsof adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS); to highlight some of
the more challenging aspects of this research; and to identify opportunities for future
research. In order to fulfil these aims, I address five related questions: What is the roleof accounting standards in an economy? What reasons have been given by governments,
their advisors, and their respective business communities for switching from domestic
accounting standards to IFRS? What benefits have been reported following the change
to IFRS? What else will help to maximise any benefits from adopting IFRS? And how
can we researchers do a better job when assessing the benefits from IFRS?
JEL Classification: M40; M41; M42; M48
Key Words: Accounting Standards; IFRS; Agency Costs; Benefits of IFRS;
Research Opportunities* Corresponding Author. Address 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009 AUSTRALIA. Telephone +61 (8) 6488-6000
Email philip.brown@uwa.edu.au
Received March 6, 2013; available online May 16, 2013 (Advance publication by J-STAGE)
DOI: 10.11640/tjar.3.2013.01
Copyright©2013 Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration - Kobe University.

2

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

1. Introductory Remarks
The title of this paper is “Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of
Adopting IFRS”. IFRS is of course short for International Financial Reporting Standards issued
by the International Accounting Standards Board.1 The title refers to the benefits to nations. I
will also be referring to research on the benefits to companies that adopt IFRS. While companies
are an important medium through which nations benefit, the title reminds us that benefits tonations extend beyond those that companies experience.
I address four questions:ⅰ. What is the role of accounting standards? This is a fundamental question toanswer because it helps us to identify where the principal benefits of adopting a set of
uniform, enforceable standards are most likely to be found. The perspective I take isthat accounting standards are designed primarily to help deal with agency costs infinancial markets.
ⅱ. What reasons have been given when countries have committed to adopting IFRS?
The decision to require companies to adopt IFRS is made by a government; and it isworth asking what governments, their advisors, and their business communities haveexpected to achieve as a result of that decision.
ⅲ. What benefits have been reported? What has been the experience of countries thathave introduced the requirement for at least some of their companies, typically thosethat are the largest? If the benefits that were sought have in fact materialised, then thestandards will gain greater acceptance in those countries and elsewhere as well.
ⅳ. How can researchers do a better job of assessing the benefits of adopting IFRS?
As we shall see, there is scope to widen the set of research questions addressed byacademics, and to improve substantially the methods that have been used to addressthem.

2. The Role of Financial Accounting Standards
Accounting records existed long before accounting standards came into being. For many
years now, accounting methods have been codified for purposes other than preparing financial
statements to be included in companies’ annual reports to their shareholders, for example, forincome tax or statistical purposes. Accounting standards as we know them today are a relatively
recent development. They initially evolved in Western countries with comparatively well1

This paper adopts and builds on the schema laid out in my 2011 review paper (Brown 2011). Core ideas in that
paper are repeated here, for the sake of completeness. In much of the discussion I do not differentiate between
International Accounting Standards (IAS) issued by the IASC and IFRS issued by the IASB. However the reader
should be aware that IFRS are regarded by standard setters as a significantly more complete set of standards andthis fact can have a bearing on how particular research results should be interpreted.

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

3

developed equity markets and took the form of codes of “best” practice.2 Today, they typicallyhave the force of law, although there are major differences across jurisdictions in the extent towhich practices are monitored and the law enforced.
Accounting standards turn out to be important in a well-developed equity market because
they help resolve a serious agency problem in a relatively efficient manner. What is that agency
problem? Here is one way to depict it.
Generally, insiders - those who are the firm’s controllers, manager-entrepreneurs, or“managers” for short - do not know as much as others do about the state of the economy as awhole, but they are usually significantly better informed than outsiders about their firm’s
investment opportunities, about how effectively they, the managers, will work and thecompensation they will take, and how well the firm is doing overall. However, to grow the firm,
the managers may need access to more capital, which is held by others, who are outsiders.
Now outsiders do not know as much as insiders do about the firm’s investment
opportunities, and they do not know how hard the managers will work, or how much they willconsume in perks. But they do know managers are subject to human frailty: they will act in theirown best interest, and from time to time they will take advantage of opportunities to do so.
Outsiders will still supply more capital, but only if they are offered a larger slice of the corporatepie, reflecting the cost to them of not being as well informed as are the managers about what will
happen to the outsiders’ money once it is received. Therein lies the agency problem: what canmanagers do to increase their own wealth by reducing the cost of the additional capital?
One thing the managers can do is agree to provide credible and costly information; to havetheir performance measured and their performance reports to outsiders certified by independent
auditors. Having agreed to such a monitoring and reporting process, the managers could write
a separate contract with each financier, guaranteeing to provide them with a specially tailored
and audited report. But in countries where fungible rights3 are traded in active capital markets,the number of individual contracts for large corporations would be virtually limitless. So, where
primary and secondary capital markets are important to an economy, uniform accounting andauditing standards will be found because they are a relatively low-cost solution to a serious agency
problem: in essence, they function like legal “boilerplates”. Adopting standard practice is muchless costly than a system of tailored, individual contracts between every supplier of capital (every
investor and every lender) and every demander (every firm). Thus, accounting standards arefundamental in a complex financial market because they underpin how capital is allocated andcorporate performance is monitored and rewarded.
Historically, financial accounting standards have differed across countries because ofdifferences in the economic and social forces that have interacted in the past to determine thosecountries’ standards today. Much of the diversity in accounting standards across countries resultsfrom deeply entrenched differences in their legal and taxation systems, in the types ofrelationship between firms and their financiers, in inflation rates, in the stage of economic
development and in the level of community education. There are of course similarities among
national systems, reflecting economic ties or a common heritage (Meek and Saudagaran (1990),
On this view, financial accounting standards, like the law more generally, are community responses to individual
initiatives.
3
Fungible rights are rights that are treated as perfect substitutes, such as the rights attached to a unit of common
stock issued by Sony Corporation.
2

4

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

Ramanna and Sletten (2012)).
A corollary argument has long been noted. International accounting standards issued by the
IASB and its predecessor body (the IASC) remain heavily influenced by Anglo-American
traditions. They have been framed by reference to developments in western countries with a
tradition of relatively strong, legal protection of investors’ rights - especially against violation of
the rights of minority shareholders by controlling shareholders and of the rights of shareholders
in general by managers. Requiring companies in countries with other traditions to adopt anexternally-developed set of accounting standards - such as IFRS or US GAAP - does notguarantee the same economic outcomes.

3. Why Adopt IFRS?
At the simplest level, there must be significant expected benefits to adopting IFRS because
the usage of IFRS continues to spread among sovereign nations. As of October 23, 2012, fordomestic listed companies in 153 jurisdictions with at least one stock exchange, IFRS in someform is required for all companies in 93, required only for some companies in 7, permitted but
not required in 25, and not permitted in 28.4
There are many reasons why countries have adopted IFRS. For some, the demand for IFRS
has been driven primarily by the funding needs of large corporations seeking access tointernational public equity markets, and by large financial intermediaries seeking global
investment opportunities; sometimes market providers, such as the Australian Securities Exchange,
have argued strongly for adoption of international accounting standards in the hope of deepening
their own markets (Brown and Clinch 1998). For other countries, IFRS has been part of theprice of EU membership, or of obtaining development funds from an international agency (Albuand Albu 2012).
A major impetus for the acceptance and spread of IFRS was the decision by the EU to adopt
IFRS from January 1, 2005. The benefits expected for European companies from adopting IFRS
were listed in an EU statement issued in Brussels on June 7, 2002. In a particularly clear
statement, it said IFRS would: eliminate barriers to cross-border trading in securities; ensurecompanies’ accounts are more reliable, transparent, and easily compared; increase market
efficiency; and reduce the cost of capital. In Australia, a 1997 government discussion paper(Commonwealth of Australia 1997) said adopting IFRS would reduce the cost of capital, allow
Australian companies to compete on an equal footing with companies in overseas countries, andmaintain investor confidence.
Korea began to require firms to adopt IFRS in 2011. The Korea Accounting Standards
Board saw several benefits flowing from adopting IFRS: promote the competitiveness of Korean
companies; enhance corporate transparency; and provide expansion opportunities for Korean
financial companies and for the Korean accounting industry.5 Some commentators suggested
IFRS could reduce the so-called Korean discount, which has been variously estimated, with
http://www.iasplus.com; the People’s Republic of China is not included in these totals. Nobes (2013) and Zeff andNobes (2010) discuss the extent to which it may properly be claimed that a country has in fact adopted IFRS.
5
http://eng.kasb.or.kr/web/services/page/viewPage.action?page=eng/about/a_intro.html (updated statement, accessed
March 18, 2013).
4

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

5

estimates as high as 4% p.a.6
In summary, the reasons typically given for adopting IFRS are to eliminate barriers to crossborder investing; to increase the reliability, transparency and comparability of financial reports;
to increase market liquidity and the efficiency of price discovery; and to decrease the cost ofcapital. Other benefits, often not stated, are to gain access to standard setting expertise notavailable in the home country, to share the costs of standard setting and of securing compliancewith accounting standards, and to increase the mobility of supply in the labour market foraccounting professionals.7

4. What Benefits Have Been Reported in Countries That Have Adopted IFRS?
4.1 BackgroundWell over 100 research papers have been published already on various outcomes following
the adoption of IFRS and more studies are in progress. Most academic journals require authors
to “add to knowledge” for their work to be published, a question often asked by reviewers being“what does this paper contribute to the literature?” Perhaps because of the large number of
papers, the wide variety of research questions and the many different research methods being
used in order “to do something new”, researchers frequently have disagreed on the correct
answers to specific research questions they have addressed. I will return to this observation later.
Despite the diversity of methods, the vast majority of studies have been empirical in nature, withmost researchers looking to share markets for indications of benefits to companies and theirshareholders although some studies have also focused on debt (for example, Beneish, Miller and
Yohn (2012), Florou and Kosi (2013), Kim, Tsui and Yi (2011), and Pope and McLeay (2011)).
To some extent that may be a reflection of the dominant research paradigm in financial
accounting, for which my colleague Ray Ball and I should perhaps take some responsibility.
While many different countries have been studied, Germany, which permitted voluntary
adoption of international accounting standards by eligible companies before IFRS became
mandatory in 2005, has been written about more often than any other country. Be that as it may,
I do wonder to what extent the experience of German firms that chose IFRS over US GAAP,or adopted IAS voluntarily before the core set of standards known as IFRS was issued,8 or did
not choose international standards when they could have done so, can be generalised say tocountries where early adoption was prohibited (and voluntary adoption was never possible) until
The Korean discount refers to the relatively low valuations said to be placed on Korean equities. See, for example,
http://www.economist.com/node/21547255 (accessed March 5, 2013) for a discussion of the Korean discount andits causes.
7
Chua and Taylor (2008) argue the “inexorable rise” of IFRS also reflects the fact that IFRS “confer institutionalized
legitimacy because they possess three characteristics required of a technology for global governance... (namely)sponsorship by powerful interest groups/regulators, internationality and plasticity” (p. 462). IFRS have the propertyof “plasticity” because they are a “principles-based set of rules that enables local customization and local translation”.
US GAAP are described as lacking “plasticity” because they comprise a “more tightly specified set of rules” (p. 471).
8
Kevin Stevenson, Chairman of the Australian Accounting Standards Board, has remarked, consistently, thatcompanies that adopted IAS (International Accounting Standards) should not be confused with companies thatswitched from domestic standards to IFRS, because of the large differences between IAS and IFRS following thedevelopment of the core standards (see also footnote 1.)6

6

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

a single date, after which all listed companies were obliged to adopt IFRS.

4.2 Cross-border Investment

One benefit sought by the EU from adopting IFRS was to reduce the cost of cross-borderinvesting. A common complaint has been that differences in accounting standards made it moredifficult for financial analysts to forecast a firm’s future earnings, so scholars have looked at how
IFRS-adoption has affected the upwards bias in analysts’ forecasts, the accuracy of their forecasts,
how much they disagree about their forecasts, or the number of analysts who are following a
stock. Typically it has been reported that analysts’ forecasts have been more accurate since thecompanies, whose earnings were being forecasted, adopted international accounting standards. In
a comparatively recent study, Horton, Serafeim and Serafeim (2013) considered changes in theaccuracy of analysts’ earnings forecasts following IFRS-adoption by both voluntary and mandatory
adopters. They reported that the largest improvement (decrease in forecast errors) was for
mandatory adopters and was related to the difference between the firm’s earnings under domestic
GAAP and under IFRS. The improvement was reported to be due both to the greatercomparability between firms as a result of adopting IFRS, and the higher quality of IFRS relative
to the prior standards. Another international study found analysts upgraded their buy and sell
recommendations when the firm committed to applying international accounting standards inthe future (Karamanou and Nishiotis 2009). We should note it need not be the case that theemphasis in IFRS on current values of assets would make it easier for analysts to forecast the
future earnings of firms they follow, especially when those earnings are subject to greater
volatility under IFRS.
A study is more convincing when the reason for any claimed improvement is identified. In
this spirit, Chalmers, Clinch, Godfrey and Wei (2012) found the change to IFRS in Australia
had resulted in more accurate earnings forecasts where reported goodwill was a larger componentof the firm’s assets. Improved accuracy was attributed to the introduction of regular impairment
testing under IFRS. Previously, Australian standards had required the capitalisation andamortisation of goodwill, which incidentally can lead to large, irregular write-downs if businesses
that were profitable when acquired later perform badly.
The removal of barriers to cross-border investment by adopting IFRS can be reflected inchanges in the portfolios held by large international investors. Florou and Pope (2012) used a
global database, covering the holdings of institutional investors9 in more than 10,000 companies
in 45 countries and over the period 2003-2006, to study changes in equity ownership following
the adoption of IFRS. Financial institutions such as mutual funds and superannuation funds
increased their shareholdings in IFRS-adopters by 4% relative to non-adopters over two years
beginning with the adoption year. The effect was noticeably stronger among investors more
likely to benefit from higher quality reporting (for example, actively managed funds, and socalled growth and value investors), in countries with stronger enforcement, and where the switch
to IFRS had greatest effect. It remains to be seen whether any changes of this nature arepermanent. I would expect they will be seen, eventually, to have been transitory, at least to someextent, as the global information environment is further refined, for example by the continued
9

Their data were extracted from the Thomson Financial Ownership “quarterly data feed and include domestic andforeign holdings of mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity funds, andventure capital funds” (p. 2001).

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

7

spread of IFRS, changes in corporate disclosure practices, better compliance monitoring andenforcement, and improvements in information technologies available to financial analysts andinvestors.

4.3 “Quality” of Accounting Numbers

Many studies have argued adopting IFRS has brought benefits in the form of higher quality
financial statements,10 for which a plethora of measures have been advanced.11 They include theextent to which firms are believed to engage in income smoothing, or adjust their earnings sothat they beat some benchmark, or make large “discretionary” accruals when calculating earnings,
or use less conservative accounting practices. When there are so many measures of “quality”,
should we be surprised when the findings are mixed?
To illustrate the mixed findings, Ahmed, Neel and Wang (2013) studied a “broad” sample
of companies in 20 countries where IFRS were mandatorily adopted in 2005. They reported the
opposite of what IFRS-supporters would like to hear: evidence consistent with IFRS-adopting
firms engaging in more income smoothing, and being less conservative in their accruals
adjustments and less timely in recognising losses, relative to non-adopting “control” firms thatwere matched “on the strength of legal enforcement, industry, size, book-to-market, andaccounting performance” (Abstract). While the control firms came from 15 countries, 41% were
domiciled in Japan and 35% in the USA (Table 2). Interestingly, they reported their findings
held in countries with stronger enforcement, proxied by the Kaufmann, Kraay and Mastruzzi(2007) “Rule of Law” score, which suggests that their enforcement mechanisms did not negate
the greater flexibility in IFRS.
Earlier studies had found differently. Aussenegg, Inwinkl and Schneider (2008) employed
15 different measures of the extent of earnings management in 17 European countries. They
found less earnings management in Central European countries, although there was no change
for companies in the UK, Ireland or Northern Europe where enforcement is believed to bestronger. Similarly, Barth, Landsman and Lang (2008) studied a sample of firms, from 21
countries, that voluntarily adopted IAS between 1994 and 2003. They found reasonably
consistent evidence that accounting quality improved after companies adopted IAS: there wasless earnings management and more timely loss recognition, compared to a set of control firms
in the same country that were about the same size but did not adopt either IAS or US GAAP.
They also noted accounting numbers were more value-relevant for the IAS adopters. Theyreached a similar conclusion when the changes before and after adoption for the IAS adopterswere compared with the changes for the matched firms. However, Chen, Tang, Jiang and Lin(2010) added to the confused picture. They used five measures to compare changes in accounting
quality of companies in 15 European countries following adoption of IFRS, with two measuresindicating accounting quality had declined (income smoothing increased, and losses wererecognised in a less timely fashion) while three measures indicated quality had improved(managing earnings towards targets was less common, discretionary accruals became smaller, andaccruals “quality” increased).
Without going into details, it would be fair to observe that most measures of accounting
10
11

See Soderstrom and Sun (2007) for an early review.
Barth, Landsman and Lang (2008) identify several avenues by which IFRS might affect the quality of accounting
numbers, some increasing and others decreasing it.

8

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

“quality” are not without their critics, particularly estimates of the incidence of earnings
management and discretionary accruals (see, for example, Ball 2013). It is also fair to observe thatmany studies have traversed similar territory - using similar data - and their findings are notindependent. It may be opportune to dig more deeply into individual companies’ financial
statements and reporting practices, and the methods used by analysts when comparing
investment opportunities.

4.4 Comparability

Improved comparability of financial statements is another potential benefit of adopting
IFRS, but the extent to which comparability is achieved is limited by inertia in firms’ accounting
policies, how much latitude firms are allowed when choosing their accounting policies under the“old” and “new” standards, and the extent of compliance, itself partly a product of theeffectiveness of regulatory monitoring and enforcement in the particular jurisdictions in which
the firms operate. Thus a review of 16 accounting policies employed by “blue chip” companies
in the largest five stock markets that used IFRS noted that practices used before adoption of
IFRS tended, where they were allowed, to continue to be used post-IFRS. This behaviour has
led to “national patterns of accounting” that may limit any benefits of comparability (Kvaal andNobes (2010), Nobes (2013)). Similarly, if IFRS were to allow more ways to account for thesame underlying event than had been possible under the previous standards and if firms took
advantage of these opportunities, then the kind of measure that has sometimes been used toassess comparability could lead to the conclusion that accounting numbers were less comparable
after adoption of IFRS.
However, empirical studies have painted a more optimistic overall picture: comparability,
according to the measures they have used, typically has increased. Barth, Landsman, Lang andWilliams (2012) for example reported the adoption of IFRS improved the comparability of afirm’s results with those of US firms reporting under US GAAP, although some differences haveremained. (Differences have been addressed under the joint harmonisation program of the IASB
and the US standard setting body, the FASB.) Jones and Finley (2011) found, for a sample of81,560 firm-years drawn from countries in the EU and Australia, the coefficient of variation
declined after 2005 for the majority of 21 key accounting ratios. The decline was observed bothwithin countries and within industries; similar effects were not observed over the same time
period for countries that did not adopt IFRS. In another example, Yip and Young (2012) studied
the effect of mandatory adoption of IFRS on comparability in 17 European countries. They had
three measures of comparability, based on similarities in accounting “functions” (De Franco,
Kothari and Verdi 2011), information transfers between companies (Firth 1976), andsimilarity in the relationship between stock price, and earnings and book values. Yip and Youngreported that, according to all three measures, comparability in their post-IFRS period (20052007) exceeded that in the pre-IFRS period (2002-2004). Further analysis indicated thatcomparability increased post-IFRS among “like” firms but not among firms that were inherently“different”.
As a final observation, we should note that accounting standards of all types continue to
evolve, over time, and adequate controls are needed in studies of conditions “before and after
IFRS” for this fact of commercial life.

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

9

4.5 Predicting Prices and Returns

Many studies have compared the apparent “usefulness” or “value relevance” of domestic
GAAP and IFRS to investors, some of which have already been mentioned. Studies of thisnature usually compare some aspect of the relationship between historical returns from investingin the firm’s shares and its reported earnings, or fit an Ohlson-type model that relates the firm’s
stock price to its per share book value of equity and earnings per share, and sometimes also toother information not yet formally reflected in the accounts (but possibly disclosed in the notes
to the financial statements).12 These studies are mostly extensions of the huge number of studies
conducted since the 1960s of the association between equity market variables and accounting
numbers of different kinds.
Results from a comparison of the various models, primarily in terms of how well they fit thedata, have been mixed, with a closer fit with IFRS numbers being reported for some countries
but not others. For example, Devalle, Onali and Magarini (2010) studied 3,721 companies listed
on five European stock exchanges (Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Milan, and London), using datacomprising almost 14,000 company-years over the period 2002-2007. Based on Ohlson-type
panel regressions with fixed effects and structural breaks to allow for differences between the preand post-IFRS periods, they found earnings post-IFRS had greater explanatory power for stock
prices in Spain, Italy and the UK while earnings and book value of equity per share had greater
explanatory power in France, Germany and the UK. In contrast, an earlier study by Hung andSubramanyam (2007) found that, over the period 1998-2002, book value of equity played adiminished valuation role under international accounting standards than local GAAP for a sample
of 80 German companies that voluntarily adopted IAS, but the importance of earnings was greater.
A common approach found in the empirical literature is to decompose accounting numbers
into their “components”. For example, when the information is publicly available, earnings under
IFRS can be decomposed into earnings under national GAAP and the individual items which,when aggregated, constitute the difference between earnings under national GAAP and IFRS.
A British study, Horton and Serafeim (2010), is among those that have adopted this approach.
They found UK GAAP-IFRS reconciliations (foreshadowed under IFRS 1, First-time Adoptionof International Financial Reporting Standards) were value-relevant, although there was evidence
managers had delayed the disclosure of bad news associated with IFRS-adoption until after the
event. Goodwill impairment and deferred tax adjustments were newsworthy in that they werecorrelated with share market returns around the relevant announcement date. Returns may havebeen unrelated to other reconciliation items because they were either predictable or mutually
offsetting.
The possibility firms gamed their financial statements in the transition period, as noted by
Horton and Serafeim, detracts from the reliability of studies based on reconciliation items
disclosed by the firms themselves. In an attempt to get a “fix” on the prevalence of this behaviour,
Bentwood and Lee (2012) studied the financial statements of 457 of the largest Australiancompanies during the first year in which IFRS were required. They found one in six companies
provided erroneous information of a material nature in their IFRS reconciliation statements andthat one in 20 seemed to have “managed” their prior year’s earnings benchmark. Their results
underscore the importance of adequately allowing for a period of adjustment, including learning
12

I refer to these models as “Ohlson-type” because many of them are only loosely connected to the theoretical modelin Ohlson (1995).

10

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

by the key players, when studying major changes of this nature.

4.6 Liquidity and Efficiency of Equity Markets

It is possible the adoption of IFRS signals the firm is now committed to using higher quality
accounting standards, to greater disclosure and to more openness and transparency in its dealings
with outside investors.13 If so, and if the firm honours that commitment, then its stock could betraded more actively and priced more efficiently in stock markets. Authors have interpreted thatto mean its stock price should change more often, which is one among many measures ofliquidity (and more appropriate to less liquid stocks), or that more of the stock’s market volatility
would be driven by news about the firm itself, rather than by news about other firms or about
the market as a whole. In broad terms, a consistent finding is that idiosyncratic volatility has
increased relative to overall market volatility, more so in countries with a reputation for stronger
protection of the rights of minority shareholders and stricter enforcement of the law.
Market providers like to operate more liquid markets for obvious reasons of self-interest,
which may be one reason why the Australian Securities Exchange (formerly the Australian Stock
Exchange) was a consistent and strong supporter of international accounting standards long
before their mandatory adoption in 2005 (Brown and Clinch 1998). And IFRS have a potentiallybeneficial role in fostering liquidity, provided on balance they are superior from the market’s
perspective. The question, then, is whether they satisfy that role. Several studies have found thatthey do. For example the Open Market at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange allows investors totrade in about a third of all foreign listed companies world-wide, many of which report under
IFRS. Brüggemann, Daske, Homburg and Pope (2012) found the stocks of companies that
adopted IFRS were subsequently traded more heavily, and especially stocks of mandatory
adopters. In an early study, Leuz and Verrecchia (2000) found the volume of trading in theshares of German firms that had voluntarily switched from domestic GAAP to either to IAS or
US GAAP, with their greater disclosure requirements, was greater than the trading volume ofthose that retained domestic GAAP, while bid-ask spreads were smaller. Similarly Gassen and
Sellhorn (2006) reported the bid-ask spreads of German firms that voluntarily adopted IAS
before 2005 fell by an average of 70 basis points (0.7%) and there was an average of 17 more daysof price changes each year; on the other hand, their stock returns became more volatile.
However, the generalizability of these results has been questioned by Christensen, Hail and Leuz(2012), who reported the liquidity effects of mandatory adoption of IFRS have been confined to
five EU countries that made “substantive” changes in enforcement along with the introductionof IFRS. They also found similar liquidity effects among firms that were subject to enforcementchanges but did not switch to IFRS.
We might observe that students of stock market microstructure have proposed a whole range
of definitions and ways of measuring liquidity, so I for one would not be surprised if Christensen,
Hail and Leuz’s results, albeit based on four established measures, are contradicted by evidence
based on other measures, in time.14 We might also observe that, while Christensen, Hail andThis statement may be more descriptive of firms that voluntarily adopt a “higher quality” set of accounting standards
when they have the opportunity to do so.
14
Christensen, Hail and Leuz (2012) employ four liquidity measures: bid-ask spread, the proportion of days with zero
returns, the “illiquidity” measure of Amihud (2002), and an estimate of round-trip transaction costs that would beincurred when buying and then selling the same stock.
13Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

11

Leuz urge us to be cautious about attributing increased liquidity to the change in accounting
standards, we should be cautious before interpreting failure to reject the null hypothesis, typicallythat IFRS adoption was not accompanied by some predicted “improvement”, as meaning the null
hypothesis is true.

4.7 Cost of Capital

The ultimate equity market benefit apparently sought by countries when adopting IFRS has
been to lower the cost of capital primarily to the corporate sector, since outside suppliers ofcapital would not need the same level of price-protection or compensation for processing“foreign” financial information. All else equal, stockholders, present and future, and otherstakeholders would benefit because the firm’s existing activities would become more valuable,
future growth opportunities would become more worthwhile and some otherwise marginal
projects would become economically viable. The economy as a whole would benefit fromexpanded employment opportunities, and so on. In that way it may be claimed that the whole
nation stands to gain.
But the argument, which I have put simply, does draw a long bow since many other forces
are at work and, predictably, the results have been mixed. One of the most widely-cited studiesof the cost of capital, Daske (2006), found no reliable evidence the voluntary adoption ofinternational accounting standards had led to a lower cost of capital among German companies
that adopted IAS or US GAAP between 1993 and 2002. But in a wider study, Shi and Kim(2007) reported the cost of capital was lower for IAS-adopters, for a sample of more than 20,000
firm-years and 34 countries between 1998 and 2004. In another study, Karamanou and Nishiotis(2009) reported a lower cost of equity capital, evidenced by positive returns at the announcementof adoption, followed by lower long run returns after the event.15 Indeed, Li (2010) estimated,
for a sample of more than 1,000 EU firms over 12 years (1995-2006), the cost of capital for
mandatory adopters fell by a non-trivial 47 basis points, or about one-half of 1% annually. Can
you imagine what 0.47% per annum would amount to globally, were it representative of theaverage benefit and all nations were to adopt IFRS?
Liquidity and the cost of capital are not unrelated; and many studies have attempted tocapture equity market effects by using multiple indicators of market outcomes. In their wideranging study of thousands of companies in 26 countries, Daske, Hail, Leuz and Verdi (2008)
found liquidity and companies’ market capitalisations increased before adoption. Voluntary
adopters, that is, firms with stronger incentives to adopt IFRS, had benefited more, which isconsistent with self-selectors having had greater incentives in the first place.

4.8 Summary of Reported Benefits

To summarise, the principal benefits that researchers have claimed to have found are
improved comparability in accounting numbers, more accurate analysts’ forecasts, better access byfinancial institutions and companies to international equity markets, higher quality financial
statements, more efficient pricing in equity markets, more liquid equity markets and a lower cost15

All else equal, an unexpected and significant reduction in the cost of equity capital would raise stock prices if themarket quickly reached a consensus view that it would happen. To the extent that the cost of equity capital isrevealed in historical returns, a second effect would be lower stock market returns once the initial price adjustment
had occurred.

12

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

of equity capital. But while the evidence does point to economic benefits, the conclusions are notuncontroversial. Furthermore, the research literature is characterised by a lack of agreement
about exactly what to look for, and how, where, and when to do so.

5. The Future: How Might we Researchers do a Better Job?
There are, already embedded in my foregoing comments, a number of issues where there is
ample room for improvement. In this section I will elaborate on just four of them: refining ourmodels and the ways we operationalize the variables; sharpening the focus on enforcement;
allowing for progressive learning by preparers, auditors, financial analysts and other users, andregulators; and widening the scope of questions investigated beyond the present fascination withfinancial (especially equity) markets.

5.1 Refining our Research Methods

We can refine our samples to gain deeper insights. Many studies have been conducted onGermany’s experience, but as already noted the German experience is different from othercountries in two substantive ways. The first and most obvious way is that some firms in Germany
could choose to adopt international accounting standards (IAS or US GAAP) before the core setof IFRS was issued. Standard-setters tell us there is “a world of difference” between IAS andIFRS, and so-called early adopters were not reporting under IFRS. But even if they were, there
is another more subtle difference that seems to have escaped many researchers. “Mandatory
adopters” in Germany are different from “mandatory adopters” in countries that did not permit
early adoption, such as the UK or Australia, in the following sense: German firms that used
domestic GAAP until 2005 then switched to IFRS when it became mandatory to do so had achoice before 2005; firms in some other countries did not. The challenge is how we can we turnthis simple observation to greater advantage.16
Another example might be to factor into our models the differences between “previousGAAP” and IFRS. More could be done to develop and calibrate models that explain thesedifferences, for example by employing data available for the transition year, although here wemust try to differentiate between genuine differences and any differences occasioned bymanagerial opportunism in the year of change. We could then use those models to predict thedifferences for sample companies in other years, and to incorporate the predicted differences into
our subsequent analysis.
Then we might ask, what is the cost versus benefit trade-off? Many if not most capital
markets-based studies
such as studies of the relationship between stock price, earnings andbook value of equity
presumably reflect private benefits net of costs, because that is whatmarket agents would rationally price. Other studies
such as studies that compare earnings
forecast errors made by financial analysts before and after the adoption of IFRS
may reflect
mainly the benefits to outside users and are not expressed in terms of a monetary value toshareholders, who may gain benefits but bear costs to the company of converting to IFRS. I
expect the commercial and regulatory communities would be interested to know the principal
drivers of the costs separately from the benefits, including both private and public costs and16

See Christensen, Lee and Walker (2007) for one possibility.

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

13

benefits, their economic importance, and how they vary over time. I also expect some researchers
will attempt to satisfy that interest in the course of time. These are difficult issues and to the bestof my knowledge there has been no real progress on that front since I first raised it some years
ago.
Another possibility is to refine the variables of interest. For instance, although there are
exceptions (for example, Katselas 2010), studies often use the “observed” bid-ask spread as if itwere a reliable indicator of the cost of adverse selection, whereas our colleagues in financetypically prefer to decompose the spread into several components, only one of which is that cost.
Another example is measures of the cost of capital, of which there is a daunting array. Additional
examples are measures of “timeliness” and “accounting quality”. Much more can be done to refine
these and other measures and to validate them in related settings, as a means of increasing ourconfidence in the correctness of the conclusions reached in studies that employ them.
Can we improve our controls for confounding factors? Some studies have investigatedchanges in liquidity following the adoption of IFRS, as I have already mentioned. Equity
market-based measures of the benefits of IFRS are especially susceptible to the huge changes thathave taken place in financial markets, as a result of amalgamations of market providers (mainly
the stock exchanges), changes in the market providers’ trading platforms and protocols (forexample to allow “straight through” trading by investors), the emergence of “order concentrators”,
and of “dark pools” which have siphoned off large amounts of liquidity previously provided byinstitutional traders and added to the risk of trading on the primary (“lit”) market, opportunities
to trade in complex derivatives, and the growth in high frequency (“algorithmic”) trading to
exploit arbitrage opportunities that are tiny at the individual transaction level but can become
highly profitable when aggregated over many transactions. These factors have had a much greater
influence on stock market liquidity than the adoption of accounting standards, and they are also
time-dependent. If we wish to persevere with equity market-based measures of the benefits,
more must be done to add appropriate controls using whatever information may be available on
the changes I have indicated probably not much, in the case of “dark pools”!
Corporate governance is another confounding factor. Corporate governance at country andfirm levels influences many decisions such as the firm’s disclosure policy, its financial policy, thequality of its accounting numbers, and its choice of auditor; and furthermore, corporate
governance influences the properties of analysts’ forecasts, as well as the firm’s cost of capital(Brown, Beekes and Verhoeven 2011). While those who research corporate governance also have
major hurdles to face, such as how to accommodate regulation and enforcement, we can expect
the two literatures on corporate governance and on financial accounting standards to be moreclosely tied in the years ahead.

5.2 Enforcement

Nobes (2013), in an update of his 2006 paper in the same journal, examined several issues
that explain systematic differences in the way IFRS are applied across countries. Among them
are different national implementations of IFRS; variations in language;17 and optional treatments
17

McGregor (2012) has commented: “I recall one member of an IASC delegation, after complaining about a proposed
wording, commenting that their delegation is not too concerned ‘because they will fix it in the translation’.
Although said in jest, this highlights the forces that were at play in the early years of international standard setting.”(p. 226).

14

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

permitted under IFRS that allow previous cross-country differences in usage to continue after
IFRS have been adopted. Beyond these national differences are differences in a firm’s level ofcompliance with the standards that have been promulgated.
An effective, independent audit function plays a key role in establishing the credibility andreliability of accounting reports, and in attesting to the correctness of the statement that acompany’s financial statements “comply with IFRS”. Auditors with a high level of skill andexpertise, who are independent, are crucial to guiding their clients in the correct interpretationand implementation of IFRS. “Auditing the auditors” is likewise important, to ensure they fulfil
their tasks. We should observe that there have been major developments in international auditing
standards in recent years and they may need to be accommodated in our research designs.
Second, there is a demand for effective compliance monitoring and enforcement. In one
study based on more than 100,000 firm-year observations drawn from 32 countries between 2000
and 2006, Cai, Rahman and Courtenay (2008) found that the extent of earnings management
was declining over time and that it was less prevalent in countries with a stronger enforcement
process. In another large cross-country study, Houqe, van Zijl, Dunstan and Karim (2012) foundearnings quality had improved in countries with stronger investor protection, including
enforcement, after they had adopted IFRS. They extracted country-level ratings from the 2008
edition of The Financial Development Report of the World Economic Forum and their measurescovered the enforcement of securities law and accounting standards, judicial independence, andthe protection of the rights of minority shareholders. Their sample comprised more than 100,000
firm-year observations from 46 countries between 1998 and 2007.
There is a disconcerting inconsistency between the original aims of those who led thedevelopment of international accounting standards in the early days18 and the finding that thebenefits reported to have followed the adoption of IFRS have not extended to “low enforcement
countries”. We could take a long term view and implicitly reject the short horizon used in somany studies to measure benefits; or we could believe either that the “founding fathers” ofinternational accounting standards worked on a false premise, or that those who committed
countries to adopting international standards “got it all wrong”. Another possibility is that studies
have been hampered by noisy measures of the extent of a country’s enforcement of accounting
standards. Perhaps better measures, focused on enforcement of accounting standards in particularrather than on enforcement of the law more generally, could be developed. That question was
taken up by Brown, Preiato and Tarca (2013), who developed separate measures of (1) the“quality” of public company audits and (2) the degree of accounting enforcement activity by
regulators in 51 countries. In a second paper (Preiato, Brown and Tarca 2013) they used theaccuracy of analysts’ consensus earnings forecasts, and disagreement among analysts with respect
to their earnings forecasts, to compare the reliability of their proxies with five other enforcement
proxies used in the accounting research literature. Preiato, Brown and Tarca concluded that theirmore focused measures may be useful “when seeking to distinguish between countries according
to the strength of their enforcement of accounting requirements” (Abstract).

18

Warren McGregor, who for 10 years was a member of the IASB and for the previous 17 years was a staff memberof the IASC, puts it this way: “Notwithstanding the IASC’s objective, in the early years its role became one ofdeveloping standards for countries that either did not have a capacity to develop their own national standards orwere in the formative stages of developing such a capacity” (McGregor (2012), p. 226).

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

15

5.3 Learning

Learning, manifest in progressive improvement over time, is a common finding. To illustrate,
Carlin, Finch and Ford (2007) reported that, initially, there was substantial non-compliance inthe early post-IFRS reports of some large Australian listed companies. When faced bycomplicated change in the environment, people do not fully adjust their behaviour overnight.
With respect to IFRS-adoption, standard setters, companies and those who give guidance tothem, auditors, shareholders, security analysts and other users of financial statements, andregulators, can all take a significant amount of time to adapt to the new standards, where theamount of time would depend on the nature and extent of the difference between “previousGAAP” and IFRS, and the extent of training and technical support available to those affected.19
So another improvement would be to model learning over time by those who are involved withIFRS.
It will not be easy to allow for learning. Accounting standards themselves are not static: newstandards are being introduced and existing standards revised frequently. Researchers, especially
users of panel data, would do well to accommodate the standard setters’ “shocks” to IFRS andthe process of subsequent learning by affected parties. Choosing the most appropriate time
period to use when estimating the benefits from adopting IFRS involves a difficult trade-off:
between one long enough to allow the effects to percolate through the system but short enoughto exclude confounding factors. It reminds me of the choice of estimation period when fitting theMarket Model to historical data: the longer the time period, the greater the number of data
points and, other things equal, the greater the precision with which the coefficients are
estimated. However, the longer the time period the more likely it is that other things are notequal, and that the true values of coefficients in the Market Model have changed. The choices
have similarities although the choice of the optimal estimation period when modelling learning
about a new standard is more complicated because researchers prefer to gain the first moveradvantage. They may lose that advantage if they wait longer for the changes to take effect.
While others have also commented on the likelihood that short horizon studies may
understate the benefits of adopting a new set of accounting standards, for example Loyeung,
Matolcsy, Weber and Wells (2011), I am aware of only one working paper (Brown, Seow andTarca 2013) that attempts to model learning explicitly; and the test for learning in that paper isbased on a single attribute, namely transparency as revealed in the timeliness of price discovery.20
We found, for a sample of mandatory IFRS adopters in France, Italy and Spain (countries withmore to learn) and in Australia, Sweden and the UK (countries with relatively less to learn),evidence over the period 2002-2010 that firms did become progressively more transparent
following IFRS adoption. We also found that companies which, before the changeover fromlocal GAAP to IFRS, appeared to have more to learn were taking longer. However, this paper
is only a first step in trying to understand a highly complex process.

Learning in organizations depends on a variety of factors, for example “organizational ‘forgetting,’ employee turnover,transfer of knowledge from other products and other organizations, and economies of scale” (Argote and Epple
1990).
20“Timeliness of price discovery” is used as defined by Beekes and Brown (2007): “Price discovery is the process
whereby value-relevant, private information becomes impounded or reflected in a stock’s publicly-observable market
price. The timeliness of price discovery refers to how quickly that process takes effect” (Abstract).
19

16

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

5.4 Scope of Questions Investigated

Many of the potential benefits from adopting IFRS are still to be researched. Examples are
the influence of IFRS on the depth of professional skills, accounting education, labour market
mobility, business opportunities for financial institutions and professional accounting firms, andbetter outcomes resulting from improved compliance monitoring and enforcement that havegone hand-in-hand with the adoption of IFRS. Again, to the best of my knowledge there has
been little progress on some of these issues since I first raised them about three years ago.
Studies of the benefits of IFRS tend to be biased towards large companies because electronic
databases do not cover the whole economy. While that sample bias is not without its
methodological advantages, because there is less concern about the “quality” of corporate
governance and compliance rates are higher among larger firms, it does have a disadvantage inthat we know relatively little of the costs and benefits of IFRS usage by the millions of smaller
listed and unlisted companies, and public sector organisations, that have adopted IFRS in someform.
The fact that only some firms chose to adopt IFRS when they could do so is a simple
reminder that not all firms should be expected to benefit to the same extent from a change inaccounting standards, such as the adoption of IFRS. Consistent with this observation and basedon the experience of voluntary adopters in Germany, Christensen, Lee and Walker (2007)
predicted and found evidence of cross-sectional variation in equity market returns consistent with
their predictions for UK firms that were required to adopt IFRS in 2005. Taking a different lineof approach to the same issue of diversity in the effects on companies of a switch to IFRS,
Brüggemann, Hitz and Sellhorn (2013) argued in a review paper that, consistent with theliterature on accounting policy choice, IFRS can materially affect contractual outcomes, which
presents a number of research opportunities. Apart from these potential lines of further enquiry,
we should note that developments in information systems technology, including the growing useof XBRL, have undoubtedly reduced the direct cost of producing reports under multiple
reporting regimes and, as well, the cost of translating financial statements from one reporting
regime to another.
Finally, what about the influence of historical and socio-economic factors? Everyone seems
to agree that they play a role in determining the extent of the costs and benefits from adoptinginternational accounting standards, but how big is that role,21 what form does it take, and how
does it affect the time taken for any benefits to materialise?

6. Concluding Remarks
Many benefits from adopting IFRS have been claimed, especially in the form of greatercomparability and higher “quality” accounting numbers, a richer information environment for
financial analysts, easier access by companies to international sources of finance and by financial
institutions to international investment opportunities, deeper and more efficient public equity
markets, and a lower cost of capital. The wide range of these studies presents us with two
21

A number of studies have related aspects of culture to the adoption of international accounting standards, forexample McKinnon and Harrison (1985), Ding, Jeanjean and Stolowy (2005), Askary, Yazdifar and Askarany(2008), Archambault and Archambault (2009), and Clements, Neill and Stovall (2010).

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

17

challenges: first, to reconcile conflicting findings, since the benefits are often disputed; andsecond, to expand the scope of our research to cover other important yet neglected areas.
That said, we must be aware that the accounting world has moved on: IFRS continue tospread among sovereign nations, which itself is evidence that influential and hopefully
knowledgeable decision-makers see a net benefit. It is likely that the growth in specialised IFRS
studies has peaked and that, in the future, IFRS studies will be focused more narrowly on
particular accounting standards and thereby become more closely tied into the wider financial
accounting literature. The research designs of IFRS studies should also evolve to accommodate,
explicitly, simultaneous developments in corporate governance and regulatory oversight.
REFERENCES
AHMED, A. S., M. NEEL, AND E. WANG. 2013. Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting
quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research forthcoming.
ALBU, N., AND C. N. ALBU. 2012. International Financial Reporting Standards in an emerging economy:
Lessons from Romania. Australian Accounting Review 63 (2): 341-352.
AMIHUD, Y. 2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial
Markets 5 (1): 31-56.
ARCHAMBAULT, J. J., AND M. E. ARCHAMBAULT. 2009. An analysis of social factors influencing the
adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. Journal for Global Business Advancement
2 (1-2): 38-53.
ARGOTE, L., AND D. EPPLE. 1990. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247 (4945): 920-924.
ASKARY, S., H. YAZDIFAR, AND D. ASKARANY. 2008. Culture and accounting practices in Turkey.
International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation 5 (1): 66-88.
AUSSENEGG, W., P. INWINKL, AND G. T. SCHNEIDER. 2008. Earnings management and local vs.
international accounting standards of European public firms. Working Paper, Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1310346.
AUSTRALIA, COMMONWEALTH OF. 1997. Accounting Standards: Building International Opportunities forAustralian Business, Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Proposals for Reform: Paper No. 1.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
BALL, R. 2013. Accounting informs investors and earnings management is rife: Two questionable beliefs.
Accounting Horizons forthcoming.
BARTH, M. E., W. R. LANDSMAN, M. LANG, AND C. WILLIAMS. 2012. Are IFRS-based and US GAAPbased accounting amounts comparable? Journal of Accounting and Economics 54 (1): 68-93.
BARTH, M. E., W. R. LANDSMAN, AND M. H. LANG. 2008. International accounting standards andaccounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research 46 (3): 467-498.
BEEKES, W., AND P. BROWN. 2007. On the timeliness of price discovery. Working Paper, Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=938982.
BENEISH, M. D., B. P. MILLER, AND T. L. YOHN. 2012. The impact of financial reporting on equity versus
debt markets: macroeconomic evidence from mandatory IFRS adoption. Working Paper, Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1403451.
BENTWOOD, S., AND P. LEE. 2012. Benchmark management during Australia's transition to international
accounting standards. Abacus 48 (1): 59-85.
BROWN, P. 2011. International financial reporting standards: What are the benefits? Accounting andBusiness Research 41 (3): 269-285.
BROWN, P., W. BEEKES, AND P. VERHOEVEN. 2011. Corporate governance, accounting and finance: A
review. Accounting & Finance 51 (1): 96-172.
BROWN, P., AND G. CLINCH. 1998. Global harmonisation of accounting standards: What research into
capital markets tells us. Australian Accounting Review 8 (1): 21-29.

18

The Japanese Accounting Review, 3 (2013), 1-19

BROWN, P., J. PREIATO, AND A. TARCA. 2013. Measuring country differences in enforcement of accounting
standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Working Paper, University of Western Australia.
BROWN, P., W. P. J. SEOW, AND A. TARCA. 2013. How is ‘learning’ reflected in gains from adoptingInternational Financial Reporting Standards? Working Paper, University of Western Australia.
BRÜGGEMANN, U., H. DASKE, C. HOMBURG, AND P. F. POPE. 2012. How do individual investors react to
global IFRS adoption? Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1458944.
BRÜGGEMANN, U., J. -M. HITZ, AND T. SELLHORN. 2013. Intended and unintended consequences of
mandatory IFRS adoption: A review of extant evidence and suggestions for future research. European
Accounting Review 22 (1): 1-37.
CAI, L., A. R. RAHMAN, AND S. M. COURTENAY. 2008. The effect of IFRS and its enforcement onearnings management: An international comparison. Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.
com/abstract=1473571.
CARLIN, T. M., N. FINCH, AND G. FORD. 2007. Goodwill impairment - an assessment of disclosure quality
and compliance levels by large listed Australian firms. Working Paper, Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=963078.
CHALMERS, K., G. CLINCH, J. M. GODFREY, AND Z. WEI. 2012. Intangible assets, IFRS and analysts’
earnings forecasts. Accounting and Finance 52 (3): 691-721.
CHEN, H., Q. TANG, Y. JIANG, AND Z. LIN. 2010. The role of International Financial Reporting Standardsin accounting quality: Evidence from the European Union. Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting 21 (3): 220-278.
CHRISTENSEN, H. B., L. HAIL, AND C. LEUZ. 2012. Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes inenforcement. Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017160.
CHRISTENSEN, H. B., E. LEE, AND M. WALKER. 2007. Cross-sectional variation in the economic
consequences of international accounting harmonization: The case of mandatory IFRS adoption in
the UK. The International Journal of Accounting 42 (4): 341-379.
CHUA, W. F., AND S. L. TAYLOR. 2008. The rise and rise of IFRS: An examination of IFRS diffusion.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27 (6): 462-473.
CLEMENTS, C. E., J. D. NEILL, AND O. S. STOVALL. 2010. Cultural diversity, country size, and the IFRS
adoption decision. The Journal of Applied Business Research 26 (2): 115-126.
DASKE, H. 2006. Economic benefits of adopting IFRS or US-GAAP - have (sic) the expected cost ofequity capital really decreased? Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 33 (3-4): 329-373.
DASKE, H., L. HAIL, C. LEUZ, AND R. S. VERDI. 2008. Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early
evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research 46 (5): 1085-1142.
DE FRANCO, G. U. S., S. P. KOTHARI, AND R. S. VERDI. 2011. The benefits of financial statementcomparability. Journal of Accounting Research 49 (4): 895-931.
DEVALLE, A., E. ONALI, AND R. MAGARINI. 2010. Assessing the value relevance of accounting data after
the introduction of IFRS in Europe. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 21(2): 85-119.
DING, Y., T. JEANJEAN, AND H. STOLOWY. 2005. Why do national GAAP differ from IAS? The role ofculture. The International Journal of Accounting 40 (4): 325-350.
FIRTH, M. 1976. The impact of earnings announcements on the share price behaviour of similar typefirms. The Economic Journal 86 (342): 296-306.
FLOROU, A., AND U. KOSI. 2013. Does mandatory IFRS adoption facilitate debt financing? Working Paper,
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1508324.
FLOROU, A., AND P. F. POPE. 2012. Mandatory IFRS adoption and institutional investment decisions. The
Accounting Review 87 (6): 1993-2025.
GASSEN, J., AND T. SELLHORN. 2006. Applying IFRS in Germany: Determinants and consequences
Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=906802.
HORTON, J., AND G. SERAFEIM. 2010. Market reaction to and valuation of IFRS reconciliation
adjustments: First evidence from the UK. Review of Accounting Studies 15 (4): 725-751.
HORTON, J., G. SERAFEIM, AND I. SERAFEIM. 2013. Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve theinformation environment? Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (1): 388-423.

Philip Brown: Some Observations on Research on the Benefits to Nations of Adopting IFRS

19

HOUQE, M. N., T. VAN ZIJL, K. DUNSTAN, AND A. K. M. W. KARIM. 2012. The effect of IFRS adoption
and investor protection on earnings quality around the world. The International Journal of Accounting
47 (3): 333-355.
HUNG, M., AND K. R. SUBRAMANYAM. 2007. Financial statement effects of adopting international
accounting standards: The case of Germany. Review of Accounting Studies 12 (4): 623-657.
JONES, S., AND A. FINLEY. 2011. Have IFRS made a difference to intra-country financial reporting
diversity? The British Accounting Review 43 (1): 22-38.
KARAMANOU, I., AND G. P. NISHIOTIS. 2009. Disclosure and the cost of capital: Evidence from themarket’s reaction to firm voluntary adoption of IAS. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 36 (78): 793-821.
KATSELAS, D. 2010. Transparency and accounting standards. PhD Thesis, School of Finance and Applied
Statistics. The Australian National University.
KAUFMANN, D., A. KRAAY, AND M. MASTRUZZI. 2007. Governance Matters VI: Governance indicators for
1996-2006. Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=999979.
KIM, J.-B., J. L. TSUI, AND C. YI. 2011. The voluntary adoption of International Financial ReportingStandards and loan contracting around the world. Review of Accounting Studies 16 (4): 779-811.
KVAAL, E., AND C. NOBES. 2010. International differences in IFRS policy choice: A research note.
Accounting and Business Research 40 (2): 173-187.
LEUZ, C., AND R. E. VERRECCHIA. 2000. The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of
Accounting Research 38 (Supplement): 91-124.
LI, S. 2010. Does mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in the European
Union reduce the cost of equity capital? The Accounting Review 85 (2): 607-636.
LOYEUNG, A., Z. P. MATOLCSY, J. WEBER, AND P. A. WELLS. 2011. An analysis of the accounting errorsthat arise during the transition to IFRS. Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=
1752485
MCGREGOR, W. 2012. Personal reflections on ten years of the IASB. Australian Accounting Review 22 (3):225-238.
MCKINNON, J. L., AND G. L. HARRISON. 1985. Cultural influence on corporate and governmental
involvement in accounting policy determination in Japan. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 4 (3):201-223.
MEEK, G. K., AND S. M. SAUDAGARAN. 1990. A survey of research on financial reporting in a transnational
context. Journal of Accounting Literature 9: 145-182.
NOBES, C. 2013. The continued survival of international differences under IFRS. Accounting and BusinessResearch 43 (2): 83-111.
OHLSON, J. A. 1995. Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting
Research 11 (2): 661-687.
POPE, P. F., AND S. J. MCLEAY. 2011. The European IFRS experiment: Objectives, research challenges
and some early evidence. Accounting and Business Research 41 (3): 233-266.
PREIATO, J., P. BROWN, AND A. TARCA. 2013. Mandatory adoption of IFRS and analysts’ forecasts: Howmuch does enforcement matter? Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1499625.
RAMANNA, K., AND E. SLETTEN. 2012. Network effects in countries’ adoption of IFRS. Working Paper,
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1590245.
SHI, S., AND J. -B. KIM. 2007. International Financial Reporting Standards, institutional infrastructuresand costs of equity capital around the world. Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=984127.
SODERSTROM, N. S., AND K. J. SUN. 2007. IFRS adoption and accounting quality: A review. European
Accounting Review 16 (4): 675-702.
YIP, R. W. Y., AND D. YOUNG. 2012. Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve information comparability?
The Accounting Review 87 (5): 1767-1789.
ZEFF, S. A., AND C. W. NOBES. 2010. Commentary: Has Australia (or any other jurisdiction) ‘adopted’
IFRS? Australian Accounting Review 20 (2): 178-184.