IFRS and value relevance: evidence based on Canadian adoption

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether financial information prepared and disclosed under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has incremental value relevance vs information prepared under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in Canada. Design/methodology/approach - – The authors employ a difference in differences methodology and estimate value relevance using: first, the adjustedR2 of regressions of stock price on book value and earnings; second, the adjustedR2 of regressions of stock returns on earnings and changes in earnings; and third, a time series incremental association return estimation. The authors use multiple models including a model similar to the Ohlson (1995) model and a modified Balachandran and Mohanram (2011) model to investigate value relevance in the period 2008-2013. Findings - – The authors provide empirical evidence, based on unique Canadian environment, that accounting information prepared and disclosed under IFRS exhibits higher price and returns value relevance than accounting information prepared previously under local GAAP. Sensitivity analyses and yearly trends regressions produce collaborating evidence. Originality/value - – The study provides early empirical evidence that value relevance increases in mandatory IFRS adoption, based on unique Canadian adoption. The Canadian adoption is unique because Canada: first, is the first G7 non-European country to adopt IFRS; second, had pursued a dual strategy of harmonizing with the US GAAP while supporting IFRS convergence; third, provided information environment that mitigates the problems associated with measuring the effects of IFRS adoption in the European countries where IFRS or its predecessor – international accounting standards – had permeated the reporting environment prior to the mandatory adoption in 2005; and fourth, allowed firms listed on the US exchanges to continue to use or adopt the US GAAP for financial reporting and thus, provided a group of benchmark firms drawn from the same social-political and economic environment as the treatment firms. The study clarifies prior inconsistent results from European samples.