Comments on the Context-Specific Nature of Financial Reporting Quality

Document Type : Review article

Author

• Reza Hesarzadeh

Associate Professor

10.22067/ijaaf.v4i1.88702

Abstract

Some conceptual studies believe that the nature of financial reporting quality (FRQ) is inherently context-specific, i.e., FRQ is defined only in the context of a specific decision made by a specific decision maker, and it alone is meaningless. This article discusses how conditioning the FRQ on a specific context is not based on a well-built concept and may lead to problematic and misleading conclusions.

Keywords

• Financial reporting quality
• context-specific nature
• comment

---

References

Ball, C. 1985. Fitness for purpose. Surrey: Guildford.

Beatty, A., S. Liao, and J. Weber. 2010. Financial reporting quality, private information, monitoring, and the lease-versus-buy decision. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1215–1238.

Beaver, W. H. 1981. Financial reporting: An accounting revolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beynon, M. J., M. J. Peel, and Y. Tang. 2004. The application of fuzzy decision tree analysis in an exposition of the antecedents of audit fees. Omega 32: 231– 244.

Bharath, S. T., J. Sunder, and S. V. Sunder. 2008. Accounting quality and debt contracting. The Accounting Review 83 (1): 1–28.

Bhattacharya, U., H. Daouk, and M. Welker. 2003. The world price of earnings opacity. The Accounting Review 78 (3): 641–678.

Biddle, G., and G. Hilary. 2006. Accounting quality and firm-level capital investment. The Accounting Review 81 (5): 963–982.

Boulton, T. J., S. B. Smart, and C. J. Zutter. 2011. Earnings quality and international IPO underpricing. The Accounting Review 86 (2): 483–505.

Chen, F., O.-K. Hope, Q. Li, and X. Wang. 2011. Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. The Accounting Review 86 (4): 1255–1288.

Czerney, K., Schmidt, J. J., Thompson, A. M., & Zhu, W. 2019. Do Type II subsequent events impair financial reporting quality? The Accounting Review, 0000–0000. doi:10.2308/accr-52662

Dechow, P., W. Ge, and C. Schrand. 2010. Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50: 344–401.

DeFond, M. L. 2010. Earnings quality research: Advances, challenges and future research. Journal of Accounting and Economics 50: 402–409.

Dichev, I. D., J. Graham, C. R. Harvey, and S. Rajgopal. 2013. Earnings quality: Evidence from the field, Journal of Accounting and Economics 56: 1–33.

Elliott, W. B., Fanning, K., & Peecher, M. E. 2020. Do Investors Value Higher Financial Reporting Quality, and Can Expanded Audit Reports Unlock This Value? The Accounting Review, 95(2), 141–165. doi:10.2308/accr-52508

Financial Accounting Standards Board. 2010. Concepts Statement No. 8 Conceptual Framework For Financial Reporting—Chapter 1, The Objective of General Purpose Financial Reporting, and Chapter 3, Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information. FASB, Norwalk, CT.

Francis, J., P. Olsson, and K. Schipper. 2006. Earnings quality. Foundation and Trends in Accounting 1, 259–340.

Givoly, D., C. Hayn, and S. P. Katz. 2010. Does public ownership of equity improve earnings quality? The Accounting Review 85 (1): 195–225.

Harvey, L., and D. Green. 1993. Defining quality. Assessment and evaluation in higher education 18 (1): 9–34.

Hope, O. K., W. B. Thomas, and D. Vyas .2013. Financial reporting quality of U.S. private and public firms. The Accounting Review 88 (5): 1715–1742.

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2008. Exposure Draft on an improved Conceptual Framework For Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-useful Financial Reporting Information. London, 1–64.

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2010. The Conceptual Framework For Financial Reporting. IASB, London.

Isidro, H., Nanda, D. (DJ), & Wysocki, P. D. (2019). On the Relation between Financial Reporting Quality and Country Attributes: Research Challenges and Opportunities. The Accounting Review, 95(3), 279–314. doi:10.2308/accr-52607

Kadous, K., L. Koonce, and J. M. Thayer. 2012. Do financial statement users judge relevance based on properties of reliability? The Accounting Review 87 (4): 1335–1356.

Kim, J., and L. Zhang. 2014. Financial reporting opacity and expected crash risk: Evidence from implied volatility smirks. Contemporary Accounting Research 31(3): 851-875.

Klobas, J. E. 1995. Beyond information quality: fitness for purpose and electronic information resource use. Journal of Information Science 21 (2): 95–114.

Koh, K., S. Rajgopal, and S. Srinivasan. 2013. Non-audit services and financial reporting quality: evidence from 1978 to 1980. Review of Accounting Studies 18:1–33.

Krishnan, J., Y. Wen, and W. Zhao. 2011. Legal expertise on corporate audit committees and financial reporting quality. The Accounting Review 86 (6): 2099–2130.

Nelson, M. W., and D. J. Skinner. 2013. How should we think about earnings quality? A discussion of “Earnings Quality: Evidence from the Field”. Journal of Accounting and Economics (forthcoming)

Peyravan, L. 2020. Financial Reporting Quality and Dual-Holding of Debt and Equity. The Accounting Review, 0000–0000. doi:10.2308/accr-52661

Raman, K., L. Shivakumar, and A. Tamayo. 2013. Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions. Review of Accounting Studies (forthcoming).

Williams, P. F., and S. Ravenscroft. 2014. Rethinking decision usefulness. Contemporary Accounting Research 32(2): 763–788.

Woodhouse, D. 2012. A Short History of Quality. Abu Dhabi: Commission for Academic Accreditation.

Zhang, D. 2020. Top Management Team Characteristics and Financial Reporting Quality. The Accounting Review, 94(5), 349–375. doi:10.2308/accr-52360