IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v29y2024i4d10.1007_s11142-023-09788-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of retrospective versus modified retrospective application of accounting changes on financial statement usefulness

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Wang

    (Queen’s University)

  • Michael Welker

    (Queen’s University)

Abstract

Accounting changes, whether voluntarily undertaken by firms or mandated by standard setters, are generally implemented using one of three application methods—retrospective, modified retrospective, or prospective. This study sheds light on whether the adoption method applied to accounting changes impacts financial statement usefulness. Because individual prior year results that are presented for comparative purposes are restated under retrospective application but not under modified retrospective application, we predict that retrospective application provides data that are more useful for forecasting future earnings. Our first set of tests take advantage of a change in application method for voluntary accounting changes—from modified retrospective application to retrospective application—that occurred with the adoption of SFAS 154. Our evidence shows that retrospective application increases the extent to which future earnings are reflected in current price, decreases analyst earnings forecast errors and dispersion, and moderates abnormal trading volume and return volatility at future earnings announcements. Next, we examine the recent mandated change in revenue recognition, which allowed firms to choose either retrospective or modified retrospective application. We model self-selection arising from application method options presented in that standard, and present corroborating evidence from that mandatory change, after controlling for self-selection. Our results provide valuable feedback regarding the effects of SFAS 154 related to voluntary accounting changes and the effects of the diversity of application methods arising from the application method options provided in the recent revenue recognition standard. More generally, our results also provide useful information about the costs and benefits of different application methods for accounting changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Wang & Michael Welker, 2024. "The effect of retrospective versus modified retrospective application of accounting changes on financial statement usefulness," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 3946-3976, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:29:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09788-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-023-09788-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-023-09788-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-023-09788-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gus De Franco & S.P. Kothari & Rodrigo S. Verdi, 2011. "The Benefits of Financial Statement Comparability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(4), pages 895-931, September.
    2. Kim, O & Verrecchia, Re, 1991. "Trading Volume And Price Reactions To Public Announcements," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 302-321.
    3. James Linck & Thomas Lopez & Lynn Rees, 2007. "The valuation consequences of voluntary accounting changes," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 327-352, May.
    4. Marsha B. Keune & Timothy M. Keune & Linda A. Quick, 2017. "Voluntary changes in accounting principle: Literature review, descriptive data, and opportunities for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 39(1), pages 52-81, September.
    5. Warren Bailey & Haitao Li & Connie X. Mao & Rui Zhong, 2003. "Regulation Fair Disclosure and Earnings Information: Market, Analyst, and Corporate Responses," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(6), pages 2487-2514, December.
    6. Nerissa C. Brown & Theodore E. Christensen & W. Brooke Elliott & Richard D. Mergenthaler, 2012. "Investor Sentiment and Pro Forma Earnings Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 1-40, March.
    7. Russell Lundholm & Linda A. Myers, 2002. "Bringing the Future Forward: The Effect of Disclosure on the Returns‐Earnings Relation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 809-839, June.
    8. Biddle, Gc & Ricks, We, 1988. "Analyst Forecast Errors And Stock-Price Behavior Near The Earnings Announcement Dates Of Lifo Adopters," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 169-194.
    9. Wayne R. Landsman & Edward L. Maydew, 2002. "Has the Information Content of Quarterly Earnings Announcements Declined in the Past Three Decades?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 797-808, June.
    10. Ball, R, 1972. "Changes In Accounting Techniques And Stock Prices," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10, pages 1-38.
    11. John S. Hughes & William E. Ricks, 1986. "Market reactions to mandated interest capitalization," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 222-241, March.
    12. Morse, D & Richardson, G, 1983. "The Lifo Fifo Decision," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 106-127.
    13. Hongping Tan & Shiheng Wang & Michael Welker, 2011. "Analyst Following and Forecast Accuracy After Mandated IFRS Adoptions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1307-1357, December.
    14. Beaver, William H. & McNichols, Maureen F. & Wang, Zach Z., 2020. "Increased market response to earnings announcements in the 21st century: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1).
    15. Brown, Ld, 1983. "Accounting Changes And The Accuracy Of Analysts Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 432-443.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keune, Marsha B. & Keune, Timothy M. & Quick, Linda A., 2017. "Voluntary changes in accounting principle: Literature review, descriptive data, and opportunities for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 52-81.
    2. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    3. S. P. Kothari & Charles Wasley, 2019. "Commemorating the 50‐Year Anniversary of Ball and Brown (1968): The Evolution of Capital Market Research over the Past 50 Years," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1117-1159, December.
    4. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    5. Erik Peek, 2005. "The influence of accounting changes on financial analysts' forecast accuracy and forecasting superiority: Evidence from the Netherlands," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 261-295.
    6. Malay K. Dey & B. Radhakrishna (Radha), 2007. "Who Trades Around Earnings Announcements? Evidence from TORQ Data," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 269-291, January.
    7. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    8. Kajüter, Peter & Klassmann, Florian & Nienhaus, Martin, 2016. "Do Reviews by External Auditors Improve the Information Content of Interim Financial Statements?," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 23-50.
    9. Mark Wong & Adrian Wai Kong Cheung & Wei Hu, 2021. "When two anomalies meet: Volume and timing effects on earnings announcements," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 56(2), pages 355-380, May.
    10. Pevzner, Mikhail & Xie, Fei & Xin, Xiangang, 2015. "When firms talk, do investors listen? The role of trust in stock market reactions to corporate earnings announcements," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 190-223.
    11. Petaibanlue, Jirada & Walker, Martin & Lee, Edward, 2015. "When did analyst forecast accuracy benefit from increased cross-border comparability following IFRS adoption in the EU?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 278-291.
    12. Yangyang Chen & Jeffrey Ng & Xin Yang, 2021. "Talk Less, Learn More: Strategic Disclosure in Response to Managerial Learning from the Options Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1609-1649, December.
    13. Rajat Deb & Joydeep Das, 2018. "IFRSs Convergence and Expectation Gap: Vindication from Practitioners," Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, , vol. 17(2), pages 86-99, December.
    14. Baginski, Stephen P. & Demers, Elizabeth & Kausar, Asad & Yu, Yingri Julia, 2018. "Linguistic tone and the small trader," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 68, pages 21-37.
    15. Moehrle, Stephen R. & Mintchik, Natalia & Mohrman, Mary Beth & Reynolds-Moehrle, Jennifer A. & Vargus, Mark, 2014. "Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2011 academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 175-195.
    16. Anzhela Knyazeva & Diana Knyazeva & Leonard Kostovetsky, 2018. "Investor heterogeneity and trading," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 24(4), pages 680-718, September.
    17. Ray Ball & Lakshmanan Shivakumar, 2008. "How Much New Information Is There in Earnings?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 975-1016, December.
    18. Debreceny, Roger & Rahman, Asheq, 2005. "Firm-specific determinants of continuous corporate disclosures," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 249-278.
    19. Shahid Khan & Mark Anderson & Hussein Warsame & Michael Wright, 2015. "Do IFRS‐Based Earnings Announcements Have More Information Content than Canadian GAAP‐Based Earnings Announcements?," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 276-302, September.
    20. Najeb Masoud, 2017. "The effects of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial analysts’ forecast: Evidence from Jordan," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1290331-129, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accounting changes; SFAS 154; Application methods; Revenue recognition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:29:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09788-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.