How is IFRS different from GAAP geographically?
Best insight from top research papers
IFRS and GAAP differ geographically in terms of segment disclosures. IFRS 8, akin to SFAS 131, emphasizes a "management approach" for segment reporting, allowing for reporting discretion based on management's decision-making processes . A study on European firms reveals that under IFRS 8, geographical segments are more detailed, but the number of financial items per segment and the reporting of segmental earnings decrease. Notably, there is a variation in the quality of segment information disclosed, with firms historically reporting poorly under IAS 14 continuing to do so under IFRS 8, indicating more divergence under the new standard . Overall, the impact of IFRS 8 on geographical segment information varies with corporate transparency, without clear economic or informational effects post-adoption .
Answers from top 4 papers
More filters
| Papers (4) | Insight |
|---|---|
Open access•Journal Article | IFRS is globally adopted, while GAAP is primarily used in the US. Companies with US operations in IFRS countries must comply with IFRS for global reporting. |
51 Citations | IFRS 8 focuses on geographical segment information, enhancing disaggregation but reducing financial items per segment and segmental earnings reporting compared to historical IAS 14R disclosures. |
Open access•Posted Content 3 Citations | IFRS 8, akin to SFAS 131, enhances geographical segment disclosures with a "management approach," increasing disaggregation but reducing financial items and segmental earnings, showing varied impact based on prior reporting behavior. |
Open access•Journal Article 13 Citations | IFRS 8 allows segment reporting by product, geography, or other attributes based on management's decision-making, unlike the dual classification by business and geographic areas under IAS 14. |
Related Questions
How is spatial difference in difference used in transport geography?4 answersSpatial difference-in-differences (DID) methodology is increasingly utilized in transport geography to evaluate the impacts of transportation interventions by accounting for both temporal changes and spatial heterogeneity. This approach is particularly relevant for assessing the effects of multiple, possibly overlapping transportation projects that may induce direct, indirect, and total average causal effects within a spatial system. Bardaka et al. develop a class of difference-in-differences regression models that extend to spatial econometrics, allowing for the estimation of these effects in the context of transportation interventions, such as the expansion of light rail systems. This methodology is crucial for understanding the spatiotemporal socioeconomic impacts of transportation infrastructure improvements.
Transport geography, as a discipline, focuses on the movements of freight, people, and information, linking spatial constraints and attributes with the origin, destination, extent, nature, and purpose of movements. The spatial DID approach aligns with this focus by considering the spatial links between observations and accounting for possible spatial spillover effects, as highlighted by Dubé et al. in their evaluation of public mass transit systems on real estate values. This approach is essential for overcoming the limitations of traditional DID estimators that may neglect spatial dependencies and the potential for spatial autocorrelation in the error terms.
Moreover, the integration of spatial planning and transport planning is critical for addressing the impacts of transport infrastructure on the built environment and open space. Spatial DID methods, by incorporating spatial econometrics and accounting for spatial spillover effects, offer a robust framework for evaluating these impacts. This methodology enables policymakers and planners to assess the reinforcing effects of transportation interventions and their implications for urban development and equity, thereby facilitating more informed decision-making in the realm of transport geography.
What is the difference between AAOIFI reporting standards and the IFRS reporting standards?5 answersThe key difference between AAOIFI reporting standards and IFRS reporting standards lies in their interpretation of the objectives of financial reporting. AAOIFI integrates Sharia principles as an intrinsic part of financial reporting, while IFRS maintains neutrality by excluding religious or standard components. A study on the microeconomic consequences of AAOIFI adoption found that Islamic banks adhering to AAOIFI standards exhibit higher financial performance and conservatism, with reduced earnings management compared to non-adopters. Additionally, the challenges and benefits associated with IFRS implementation emphasize the importance of converging with IFRS to meet the needs of users and decision-makers in national and international markets. Understanding these differences and implications is crucial for Islamic financial institutions, standard-setting bodies, regulators, and investors.
What are the implications of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on corporate governance and financial reporting?5 answersThe adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has significant implications for corporate governance and financial reporting. Studies show that IFRS adoption positively influences corporate governance practices, leading to improved financial reporting quality. It enhances shareholders' rights, roles, transparency, and board duties, ultimately promoting effective corporate governance compliance. Additionally, IFRS implementation strengthens the financial regulatory framework, enhances corporate accountability, and improves disclosure practices in banks. While some challenges exist in fully integrating IFRS due to complexities, the overall impact is seen as beneficial for enhancing the quality and transparency of financial reporting in organizations. Overall, the adoption of IFRS plays a crucial role in shaping governance structures and improving the quality of financial reporting in various sectors.
What are the potential implications of using GAAP over accrual accounting for a company's financial statements?5 answersUsing GAAP over accrual accounting in financial statements can have various implications. GAAP focuses on control, verifiability, and conservatism, shaped by market forces. Non-GAAP disclosures, while potentially inflating firm performance perceptions, can increase stock price crash risk, as they may withhold bad news from investors and trigger subsequent events leading to crashes. Expert witnesses have critiqued the IASB's proposed Conceptual Framework, suggesting that a CF should override detailed standards for truthful reporting and that 'faithful representation' should include verifiably acceptable levels of accounting risk for truthful forecasts. Non-GAAP-compliant revenue accruals, though predictive of future cash receipts and sales, may not necessarily be used to smooth revenues or meet earnings benchmarks.
What is IFRS?3 answersIFRS refers to the International Financial Reporting Standards, which is a globally accepted accounting standard used by various firms. It aims to bring uniformity and acceptability to financial reporting across borders. IFRS assimilation improves transparency and comparability in financial reporting. It is a set of accounting standards that provides transparency, accountability, and efficiency to financial markets worldwide. The advantage of using IFRS is the global comparability of financial reports. However, the application of IFRS has faced challenges, including cultural differences and difficulties in implementation by companies and countries. Some countries still use their national GAAP for tax calculations, while others have adjusted their tax regulations to support IFRS implementation.
How has the adoption of IFRS impacted the accounting information environment?5 answersThe adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has had a significant impact on the accounting information environment. Studies have shown that IFRS improves the accuracy of management earnings forecasts, leading to better evaluation of firms' performance and higher returns demanded by investors. The adoption of IFRS also affects key accounting ratios, with profitability measures being significantly impacted, while liquidity ratios remain relatively unchanged. Additionally, the usefulness and relevance of accounting information have increased after the implementation of IFRS, particularly in terms of share prices, book value of equity per share, and earnings per share. However, the comparability of accounting information has decreased with the introduction of IFRS 11, which eliminated proportionate consolidation as an alternative for accounting for interests in joint ventures. Overall, IFRS aims to provide high-quality, transparent, and comparable financial reporting information globally.