Financial reporting changes and the internal information environment: Evidence from SFAS 142
- 200 Downloads
Using the adoption of SFAS 142 as an exogenous shock, we examine the effect of changes in financial reporting on firms’ internal information environment. We argue that complying with SFAS 142 induces managers to acquire new information and therefore improves their information sets. Interviews with executives and auditors confirm this argument. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find that firms affected by SFAS 142 (i.e., treatment firms) experience an improvement in management forecast accuracy in the post-SFAS 142 period. The increase is smaller for those with stronger monitoring in the pre-SFAS 142 period and greater for those with a higher likelihood of goodwill impairment. Furthermore, treatment firms with improvements in management forecast accuracy have higher M&A quality, internal capital allocation efficiency, and performance in the post-SFAS142 period. Overall, our findings indicate that changes in external financial reporting can lead to better corporate decisions via their impact on the internal information environment.
KeywordsFinancial reporting changes Internal information environment SFAS 142 Investment
JEL classificationsG34 M40 M48
We thank Patty Dechow (editor), Sandip Dhole, Mark Evans, Gerald Lobo, Shuqing Luo, Mary Jane Rabier, Sugata Roychowdhury, Stephen Stubben, Terry Warfield, two anonymous referees, and workshop and conference participants from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, INSEAD, National Taiwan University, Singapore Management University, University of Melbourne, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2014 AAA Annual Meeting, 2014 SMU SOAR Symposium, 2015 FARS Mid-year Meeting, 2015 EAA Annual Congress, and 2015 CAAA Conference for helpful comments, and Dengqjin Zheng and Wei Ting Loh for research assistance. We thank financial support from the School of Accountancy Research Center (SOAR) at Singapore Management University. The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Lee Kong Chian Fellowship.
- AICPA. (1970). Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinions No. 17: Intangible Assets.Google Scholar
- Beasley, M. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review, 71, 443–465.Google Scholar
- Chen, W., Shroff, P., & Zhang, I. (2013). Consequences of booking market-driven goodwill impairments. Working Paper: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
- FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). (1995). Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 121: Accounting for the impairment of long-lived assets and for long-lived assets to be disposed of.Google Scholar
- FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board). (2001). Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142: Goodwill and other intangible assets.Google Scholar
- Frankel, R., McNichols, M., & Wilson, P. (1995). Discretionary disclosure and external financing. The Accounting Review, 70, 135–150.Google Scholar
- Guinn, R., Schroeder, R., & Sevin, S. (2005). Accounting for asset retirement obligations: Understanding the financial statement impact. The CPA Journal, 75(12), 30–36.Google Scholar
- Holtzman, M. P. & Sinnett, W. M. (2009). Goodwill impairments. https://www.duffandphelps.com/assets/import/uploads/z-press-room-news/import/www.duffandphelps.com/sitecollectiondocuments/2009_goodwill_impairments.pdf.
- Huefner, R., & Largay, J. (2004). The effect of the new goodwill accounting rules on financial statements. The CPA Journal, 74(10), 30–35.Google Scholar
- Lewis, E., Lippitt, J., & Mastracchio, N. (2001). Users’ comments on SFAS 141 and 142 on business combinations and goodwill. The CPA Journal, 71(10), 26–30.Google Scholar
- Reason, T. (2003). Goodwill to all pieces: Are companies properly valuing and assigning acquired intangibles to business units? CFO Magazine. http://ww2.cfo.com/banking-capital-markets/2003/07/goodwill-to-all-pieces/.
- Williams, P. (1996). The relation between a prior earnings forecast by management and analyst response to a current management forecast. The Accounting Review, 71, 103–115.Google Scholar