IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v6y2007i3p269-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating Canadian Financial Reporting: Issues of Endogeneity and the Coase Theorem/Réglementation de L'Information Financière au Canada: Questions D'Endogénéité et Théorème de Coase

Author

Listed:
  • DANIEL B. THORNTON

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper assesses the probable outcomes of the recommendations of the Capital Markets Leadership Task Force Report, with an emphasis on corporate costs of capital. Two economic concepts indicate that the recommendations are only inputs to broader frameworks for analysis. First, endogeneity — the idea that everything is jointly determined in market equilibrium — suggests that implementing one recommendation (such as cracking down on GAAP breaches) influences the costs and benefits of implementing another (such as encouraging principles‐ as opposed to rules‐based accounting). Second, the Coase theorem — the idea that people use markets to transact around rules, blunting their intended effect — suggests that imposing additional responsibility on bodies like audit committees encourages adverse selection (less qualified individuals step forward to take the job) and moral hazard (those who do step forward are motivated to try to ameliorate lapses in reporting controls rather than disclose them). The paper then reviews the growing literature on the connection between accrual quality and costs of capital, highlighting measurement and implementation difficulties, and asserts that proper foci for regulators are ensuring that companies have the right (not minimum) costs of capital, given their financial reporting quality, and encouraging investor participation in Canada's capital markets. RÉSUMÉ L'auteur se propose d'évaluer les résultats probables des recommandations du rapport du groupe de travail d'experts sur les marchés financiers (Capital Markets Leadership Task Force — CMLTF), en insistant sur le coût du capital pour les entreprises. Deux concepts économiques portent à conclure que ces recommandations ne sont que les intrants de cadres d'analyse plus larges. Premièrement, l'endogénéité — l'idée selon laquelle tous les facteurs qui concourent de l'intérieur à l'équilibre du marché sont reliés entre eux — semble indiquer que l'application d'une recommandation (comme les mesures visant à colmater les brèches des PCGR) influe sur les coûts et les avantages de l'application d'autres recommandations (comme la promotion de la comptabilité axée sur les principes plutôt que sur les règles). Deuxièmement, le théorème de Coase — l'idée selon laquelle les gens utilisent les marchés pour conclure des opérations en contournant les règles, dont elles atténuent ainsi l'effet visé — donne à penser que l'imposition d'une responsabilité supplémentaire à des entités comme les comités de vérification est propre à favoriser l'antisélection (les personnes les moins compétentes se portant volontaires) et le risque moral (les personnes qui se portent volontaires étant motivées par le désir d'améliorer les défaillances des contrôles de l'information plutôt que de les faire connaître). L'auteur examine ensuite les écrits de plus en plus nombreux sur le lien entre la qualité des régularisations et les coûts du capital, mettant en relief les difficultés de mesure et d'application. Il affirme qu'en visant les cibles appropriées, les autorités de réglementation auront la certitude que le coût du capital pour les entreprises est celui qui convient (et non le coût minimum), compte tenu de la qualité de leur information financière, et qu'elles encourageront la participation des investisseurs aux marchés financiers canadiens.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel B. Thornton, 2007. "Regulating Canadian Financial Reporting: Issues of Endogeneity and the Coase Theorem/Réglementation de L'Information Financière au Canada: Questions D'Endogénéité et Théorème de Coase," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 269-278, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:6:y:2007:i:3:p:269-278
    DOI: 10.1506/ap.6.3.4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/ap.6.3.4
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/ap.6.3.4?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 2000. "Investor protection and corporate governance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 3-27.
    2. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2002. "Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1147-1170, June.
    3. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    4. Peterson, Steven & Hoffer, George & Millner, Edward, 1995. "Are Drivers of Air-Bag-Equipped Cars More Aggressive? A Test of the Offsetting Behavior Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 251-264, October.
    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. Djankov, Simeon & Glaeser, Edward & La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003. "The new comparative economics," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 595-619, December.
    2. Thorsten Beck & Ross Levine, 2008. "Legal Institutions and Financial Development," Springer Books, in: Claude Ménard & Mary M. Shirley (ed.), Handbook of New Institutional Economics, chapter 11, pages 251-278, Springer.
    3. Zhang, Qiong & Shi, Yupeng & He, Angda & Wen, Xueting, 2017. "Property rights security and firm survival: Micro-data evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 296-310.
    4. Himmelberg, Charles P. & Hubbard, R. Glenn & Love, Inessa, 2002. "Investor protection, ownership, and the cost of capital," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2834, The World Bank.
    5. Henk, Berkman & Rebel, Cole & Fu, Lawrence, 2005. "Agency Conflicts, Expropriation and Firm Value: Evidence from Securities-Market Regulation in China," MPRA Paper 52619, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nenova, Tatiana, 2003. "The value of corporate voting rights and control: A cross-country analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 325-351, June.
    7. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Oriani, Raffaele, 2006. "Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 971-993, September.
    8. Nam, Hocheol & Uchida, Konari, 2019. "Accounts payable and firm value: International evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 116-137.
    9. Jani Saastamoinen & Hanna Savolainen, 2021. "Does a leopard change its spots? Auditors and lawyers as valuation experts for minority shareholders in the judicial appraisal of private firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3-4), pages 613-636, March.
    10. Praveen Das, 2014. "The role of corporate governance in foreign investments," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 187-201, February.
    11. Burkart, Mike & Panunzi, Fausto, 2006. "Agency conflicts, ownership concentration, and legal shareholder protection," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
    12. Lee, Shih-Cheng & Lin, Chien-Ting, 2010. "An accounting-based valuation approach to valuing corporate governance in Taiwan," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 47-60.
    13. Wen, Chunhui & Xia, Xin & Yang, Jinqiang, 2017. "Idiosyncratic risk, the private benefits of control and investment timing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 65-71.
    14. Chen, Tao, 2015. "Institutions, board structure, and corporate performance: Evidence from Chinese firms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 217-237.
    15. Hyytinen, Ari & Takalo, Tuomas, 2008. "Investor protection and business creation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 113-122, June.
    16. Belkhir, Mohamed & Ben-Nasr, Hamdi, 2016. "Labor protection and the privatization or partial privatization method," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 305-322.
    17. Hüttenbrink, Alexander & Oehmichen, Jana & Rapp, Marc Steffen & Wolff, Michael, 2014. "Pay-for-performance – Does one size fit all? A multi-country study of Europe and the United States," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1179-1192.
    18. Minna Yu, 2010. "Analyst following and corporate governance: emerging‐market evidence," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(1), pages 69-93, July.
    19. Zeineb Barka & Taher Hamza, 2020. "The effect of large controlling shareholders on equity prices in France: monitoring or entrenchment?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 769-798, September.
    20. Hu, Gang & Liu, Yiye & Wang, Jacqueline Wenjie & Zhou, Gaoguang & Zhu, Xindong, 2022. "Insider ownership and stock price crash risk around the globe," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    More about this item

    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:wly:accper:v:6:y:2007:i:3:p:269-278. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3838 .

    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.