国际财务报告准则下的关联方交易披露:交叉上市是否减少了法律来源披露差距?

IF 2 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Edilene Santana Santos, R. Schiozer, V. Ponte
{"title":"国际财务报告准则下的关联方交易披露:交叉上市是否减少了法律来源披露差距?","authors":"Edilene Santana Santos, R. Schiozer, V. Ponte","doi":"10.1142/s1094406022500184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Synopsis The research problem We investigate whether cross-listing in the United States is associated with a reduction in disclosure deficiencies about related party transactions (RPTs) related to the legal traditions of firms’ countries of origin. Motivation The extant literature shows that there is a disclosure disparity associated to the firms’ legal origin (civil or common law) and the countries’ institutions (regulation, enforcement, and market scrutiny). The literature has not examined whether cross-listing in the United States mitigates (or eliminates) the disclosure gap for firms from civil law countries and countries with worse institutions. We focus on RPTs because the US Securities and Exchange Commission has put particular emphasis on regulation of this type of disclosure. Hypotheses H1: Among domestically listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. H2: Cross-listed firms have a superior level of RPT disclosure compared to domestically listed firms from the same country. H3: Among cross-listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present a superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. Target population Firms from countries that have adopted international financial reporting standards (IFRS). We sample firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS because of their representativeness in the world economy. Adopted methodology Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with firm and industry-year fixed effects. Two-stage least squares (instrumental variables) regressions to tackle endogeneity issues. Analyses We manually collected data from the financial reports of 531 firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS to compute indices of compliance with disclosures required by IAS 24. We performed double-difference regressions, comparing firms across their legal origin (common law versus civil law), and cross-listing status (cross-listed in the United States versus domestically listed only). In addition, we studied the institutional channels that drive the disclosure gap between common and civil law firms. Findings For domestically listed firms, we found that firms from the common law tradition have RPT disclosure levels superior to those of firms from the civil law tradition. We found that the level of RPT disclosure is associated with countries’ regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. However, we did not find any differences in the level of RPT disclosure among firms cross-listed in the United States that can be associated with firms’ legal origin or with other home-country institutional features. Our results suggest that the regulatory enforcement and scrutiny of capital markets imposed by the US market compensate for home-country institutional deficiencies and eliminate differences in firms’ RPT disclosures across legal origins.","PeriodicalId":47122,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disclosure of Related Party Transactions Under IFRS: Does Cross-Listing Reduce the Legal Origin Disclosure Gap?\",\"authors\":\"Edilene Santana Santos, R. Schiozer, V. Ponte\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/s1094406022500184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Synopsis The research problem We investigate whether cross-listing in the United States is associated with a reduction in disclosure deficiencies about related party transactions (RPTs) related to the legal traditions of firms’ countries of origin. Motivation The extant literature shows that there is a disclosure disparity associated to the firms’ legal origin (civil or common law) and the countries’ institutions (regulation, enforcement, and market scrutiny). The literature has not examined whether cross-listing in the United States mitigates (or eliminates) the disclosure gap for firms from civil law countries and countries with worse institutions. We focus on RPTs because the US Securities and Exchange Commission has put particular emphasis on regulation of this type of disclosure. Hypotheses H1: Among domestically listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. H2: Cross-listed firms have a superior level of RPT disclosure compared to domestically listed firms from the same country. H3: Among cross-listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present a superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. Target population Firms from countries that have adopted international financial reporting standards (IFRS). We sample firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS because of their representativeness in the world economy. Adopted methodology Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with firm and industry-year fixed effects. Two-stage least squares (instrumental variables) regressions to tackle endogeneity issues. Analyses We manually collected data from the financial reports of 531 firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS to compute indices of compliance with disclosures required by IAS 24. We performed double-difference regressions, comparing firms across their legal origin (common law versus civil law), and cross-listing status (cross-listed in the United States versus domestically listed only). In addition, we studied the institutional channels that drive the disclosure gap between common and civil law firms. Findings For domestically listed firms, we found that firms from the common law tradition have RPT disclosure levels superior to those of firms from the civil law tradition. We found that the level of RPT disclosure is associated with countries’ regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. However, we did not find any differences in the level of RPT disclosure among firms cross-listed in the United States that can be associated with firms’ legal origin or with other home-country institutional features. Our results suggest that the regulatory enforcement and scrutiny of capital markets imposed by the US market compensate for home-country institutional deficiencies and eliminate differences in firms’ RPT disclosures across legal origins.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Accounting\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406022500184\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406022500184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们调查了在美国交叉上市是否与公司原籍国法律传统相关的关联方交易(RPTs)披露缺陷的减少有关。现有文献表明,披露差异与公司的法律渊源(民法或普通法)和国家制度(监管、执法和市场审查)有关。文献没有研究美国的交叉上市是否减轻(或消除)了大陆法系国家和制度较差国家的公司的信息披露差距。我们之所以关注rpt,是因为美国证券交易委员会(sec)特别重视对这类披露的监管。假设H1:在国内上市公司中,英美法系国家上市公司的RPT披露水平优于大陆法系国家上市公司。H2:交叉上市公司的RPT披露水平高于同一国家境内上市公司。H3:在交叉上市公司中,英美法系国家的公司RPT披露水平高于大陆法系国家的公司。目标人群来自采用国际财务报告准则(IFRS)的国家的公司。我们选取了20国集团(G20)国家的公司作为样本,这些国家采用了国际财务报告准则,因为它们在世界经济中具有代表性。采用具有企业固定效应和行业固定效应的普通最小二乘(OLS)回归方法。两阶段最小二乘(工具变量)回归来解决内生性问题。我们从采用国际财务报告准则的G20国家的531家公司的财务报告中手动收集数据,以计算符合国际会计准则第24号要求的披露的指数。我们进行了双差回归,比较了不同法律渊源(普通法与大陆法系)和交叉上市状态(在美国交叉上市与仅在国内上市)的公司。此外,我们还研究了导致普通律师事务所与民事律师事务所信息披露差距的制度渠道。对于国内上市公司,我们发现英美法系上市公司的RPT披露水平优于大陆法系上市公司。我们发现,RPT披露的水平与国家的监管质量、法治和腐败控制有关。然而,我们没有发现在美国交叉上市的公司在RPT披露水平上的任何差异,这种差异可能与公司的法律起源或其他母国制度特征有关。我们的研究结果表明,美国市场对资本市场的监管执法和审查弥补了母国的制度缺陷,并消除了不同法律来源的公司RPT披露的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disclosure of Related Party Transactions Under IFRS: Does Cross-Listing Reduce the Legal Origin Disclosure Gap?
Synopsis The research problem We investigate whether cross-listing in the United States is associated with a reduction in disclosure deficiencies about related party transactions (RPTs) related to the legal traditions of firms’ countries of origin. Motivation The extant literature shows that there is a disclosure disparity associated to the firms’ legal origin (civil or common law) and the countries’ institutions (regulation, enforcement, and market scrutiny). The literature has not examined whether cross-listing in the United States mitigates (or eliminates) the disclosure gap for firms from civil law countries and countries with worse institutions. We focus on RPTs because the US Securities and Exchange Commission has put particular emphasis on regulation of this type of disclosure. Hypotheses H1: Among domestically listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. H2: Cross-listed firms have a superior level of RPT disclosure compared to domestically listed firms from the same country. H3: Among cross-listed firms, those from countries with common law tradition present a superior level of RPT disclosure than firms from countries with a civil law tradition. Target population Firms from countries that have adopted international financial reporting standards (IFRS). We sample firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS because of their representativeness in the world economy. Adopted methodology Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with firm and industry-year fixed effects. Two-stage least squares (instrumental variables) regressions to tackle endogeneity issues. Analyses We manually collected data from the financial reports of 531 firms from the G20 countries that have adopted IFRS to compute indices of compliance with disclosures required by IAS 24. We performed double-difference regressions, comparing firms across their legal origin (common law versus civil law), and cross-listing status (cross-listed in the United States versus domestically listed only). In addition, we studied the institutional channels that drive the disclosure gap between common and civil law firms. Findings For domestically listed firms, we found that firms from the common law tradition have RPT disclosure levels superior to those of firms from the civil law tradition. We found that the level of RPT disclosure is associated with countries’ regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. However, we did not find any differences in the level of RPT disclosure among firms cross-listed in the United States that can be associated with firms’ legal origin or with other home-country institutional features. Our results suggest that the regulatory enforcement and scrutiny of capital markets imposed by the US market compensate for home-country institutional deficiencies and eliminate differences in firms’ RPT disclosures across legal origins.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The aim of The International Journal of Accounting is to advance the academic and professional understanding of accounting theory, policies and practice from the international perspective and viewpoint. The Journal editorial recognizes that international accounting is influenced by a variety of forces, e.g., governmental, political and economic. Thus, the primary criterion for manuscript evaluation is the incremental contribution to international accounting literature and the forces that impact the field. The Journal aims at understanding the present and potential ability of accounting to aid in analyzing and interpreting international economic transactions and the economic consequences of such reporting. These transactions may be within a profit or non-profit environment. The Journal encourages a broad view of the origins and development of accounting with an emphasis on its functions in an increasingly interdependent global economy. The Journal also welcomes manuscripts that help explain current international accounting practices, with related theoretical justifications, and identify criticisms of current policies and practice. Other than occasional commissioned papers or special issues, all the manuscripts published in the Journal are selected by the editors after the normal double-blind refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信