IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v8y2019i2p108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the Decision to Opt In versus Opt Out of Section 107 of the JOBS Act of 2012: Determinants and Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Bergner
  • Marcus R. Brooks
  • Binod Guragai

Abstract

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (hereafter, JOBS Act) creates a new category of firms, referred to as “Emerging Growth Companies†(hereafter, EGCs). Section 107 of the JOBS Act, titled “Opt-In Right for EGCs,†gives EGCs the choice to take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an EGC can choose to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. Using a logistic regression approach with hand-collected data, we examine the underlying firm characteristics associated with EGCs’ choice of opting in or out of the accounting standards exemption, as provided by Section 107 of the JOBS Act. Using additional ordinary least square regression analyses, we further examine whether the choice of opting in or out is associated with earnings management and financial statement restatement behavior. Our results suggest that EGC firms designated as “smaller reporting companies†are more likely to choose to delay the adoption of a new or revised accounting standard (i.e., opt in). Our findings also show that EGCs that employ Big 4 auditors are more likely to opt out. We further find that EGCs that choose to opt out are less likely to engage in earnings management behavior, proxied by the absolute value of abnormal accruals, and are less likely to restate their financial statements. Taken together, our findings suggest that EGCs that choose to opt out of Section 107 produce higher quality financial statements.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Bergner & Marcus R. Brooks & Binod Guragai, 2019. "Examining the Decision to Opt In versus Opt Out of Section 107 of the JOBS Act of 2012: Determinants and Consequences," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 108-108, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/15179/9486
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/15179
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jere R. Francis & Jagan Krishnan, 1999. "Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 135-165, March.
    2. Susan Chaplinsky & Kathleen Weiss Hanley & S. Katie Moon, 2017. "The JOBS Act and the Costs of Going Public," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 795-836, September.
    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. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    2. Fred E. Huibers, 2020. "Towards an Optimal IPO Mechanism," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Ayca Zeynep Suer, 2021. "Review of Critical Accounting Estimates in the Context of Key Audit Matters," Muhasebe Enstitusu Dergisi - Journal of Accounting Institute, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(65), pages 23-37, July.
    4. Weidong Zhang & Jenny Jing Wang & Guomin Luo & Yanqi Sun, 2021. "Tunnelling in asset‐injecting private placements: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5501-5522, December.
    5. Huasheng Gao & Huai Zhang & Jin Zhang, 2018. "Employee turnover likelihood and earnings management: evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1424-1470, December.
    6. Persakis, Anthony & Iatridis, George Emmanuel, 2016. "Audit quality, investor protection and earnings management during the financial crisis of 2008: An international perspective," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 73-101.
    7. Ghosh, Aloke(Al) & Tang, Charles Y., 2015. "Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 95-116.
    8. Jenkins, David S. & Velury, Uma, 2011. "The emergence of second-tier auditors in the post-SOX era: An analysis of accounting conservatism," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 172-176.
    9. Dambra, Michael & Field, Laura Casares & Gustafson, Matthew T. & Pisciotta, Kevin, 2018. "The consequences to analyst involvement in the IPO process: Evidence surrounding the JOBS Act," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 302-330.
    10. Tsipouridou, Maria & Spathis, Charalambos, 2012. "Earnings management and the role of auditors in an unusual IFRS context: The case of Greece," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 62-78.
    11. Kim Ittonen & Karla Johnstone & Emma-Riikka Myllym�ki, 2015. "Audit Partner Public-Client Specialisation and Client Abnormal Accruals," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 607-633, September.
    12. Ya-Fang Wang, 2020. "New Insights on Audit Quality," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 13(1), pages 21-28, April.
    13. DeFond, Mark L. & Hung, Mingyi, 2003. "An empirical analysis of analysts' cash flow forecasts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 73-100, April.
    14. Jiang, Fuxiu & Ma, Yunbiao & Wang, Xue, 2020. "Multiple blockholders and earnings management," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Gopal V. Krishnan & Gerald J. Lobo & Robert Mathieu, 2011. "Audit Quality and the Market Valuation of Banks’ Allowance for Loan Losses," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 161-193, September.
    16. Richard Chung & Michael Firth & Jeong-Bon Kim, 2003. "Auditor conservatism and reported earnings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 19-32.
    17. Blankley, Alan I. & Hong, Keejae P. & Kerr, David & Wiggins, Casper E., 2014. "A note on the effect of PCAOB inspections on the audit quality of triennial CPA firms," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 212-216.
    18. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    19. Audrey Wen-Hsin Hsu & Chih-Hsien Liao, 2023. "Auditor industry specialization and real earnings management," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 607-641, February.
    20. Giuseppe Iuliano & Gaetano Matonti, 2015. "Do big 4 audit companies detect earnings management and report it in the audit opinion? Empirical evidence from italian non-listed firms," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 5-43.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:108. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.