IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01902328.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Le rôle des acteurs dans la normalisation comptable internationale : Le cas de la norme IFRS 9

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Cormier

    (CIFO - Chaire d?information financière et organisationnelle - ESG)

  • Charlotte Beauchamp

Abstract

This study deals with the accounting standardization of financial instruments and, more specifically, the replacement of IAS 39 with IFRS 9. One of the aims of this study is to determine whether certain characteristics of firms can affect their propensity to participate in the standardization process. We first analyzed comment letters sent to the IASB regarding the third exposure draft entitled "Classification and measurement: specific changes to IFRS 9". 147 letters were analyzed, although we focused our analyses on the group of preparers of financial statements, i.e. companies. We observe little difference in responses between the various groups of respondents. Our results based on a logit regression analysis are as follows: 1) Firms that responded to the first exposure draft have a greater propensity to respond to the second one. Assuming that the costs of the first response are the highest, it is fairly normal that firms that have already responded to an exposure draft are more likely to respond to subsequent Exposure Drafts on the same matter; 2) firms that have reclassified certain financial instruments during the 2008 financial crisis have a greater propensity to respond. Building on Heem et Dufour (2012), it is not surprising that firms that have previously used this practice are those with the greatest propensity to participate in the standardization process. Referring to this study, it appears that firms that chose to reclassify certain financial instruments were less profitable and less capitalized than those that did not. The objective of the reclassification was therefore probably to avoid recognizing losses in the income statement by allowing these losses to be recognized in the comprehensive income. By defining and classifying the category "at fair value through other comprehensive income", the Exposure Draft effectively avoids the recognition of losses in net income; 3) Firms with unrealized investment gains in the comprehensive income are less likely to respond. The higher the amount of unrealized gains, the more firms would want to retain the ability to transfer these amounts to other comprehensive income as permitted by the proposed standard. In doing so, there will be less volatility in net income; 3) Debt (debt / equity) is positively related to the propensity to respond to the exposure draft. Given that the Exposure Draft proposes to change the accounting for financial liabilities, it is possible that companies with more debt were willing comment; 4) the most profitable firms (ROA) seem more inclined to respond. This might be because the category of accounting for "available-for-sale" financial assets is desirable because it limits the volatility of the net income and thus of the ROA.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Cormier & Charlotte Beauchamp, 2016. "Le rôle des acteurs dans la normalisation comptable internationale : Le cas de la norme IFRS 9," Post-Print hal-01902328, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01902328
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01902328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01902328/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Begoña Giner & Miguel Arce, 2012. "Lobbying on Accounting Standards: Evidence from IFRS 2 on Share-Based Payments," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 655-691, December.
    2. Alan Richardson & Burkard Eberlein, 2011. "Legitimating Transnational Standard-Setting: The Case of the International Accounting Standards Board," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(2), pages 217-245, January.
    3. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    4. Huian Maria Carmen, 2013. "Analysis Of The Constituents’ Participation In The Development Of The 1st Phase Of Ifrs 9 Financial Instruments," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1, pages 209-216, February.
    5. Durocher, Sylvain & Fortin, Anne & Cote, Louise, 2007. "Users' participation in the accounting standard-setting process: A theory-building study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 29-59.
    6. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    7. Raf Orens & Ann Jorissen & Nadine Lybaert & Leo Van Der Tas, 2011. "Corporate Lobbying in Private Accounting Standard Setting: Does the IASB have to Reckon with National Differences?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 211-234.
    8. Sutton, Timothy G., 1984. "Lobbying of accounting standard-setting bodies in the U.K. and the U.S.A.: A Downsian analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 81-95, January.
    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. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    2. Marius Gros & Daniel Worret, 2016. "Lobbying and Audit Regulation in the EU," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 381-403, September.
    3. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Roland Königsgruber, 2013. "Expertise-based lobbying and accounting regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 1009-1025, November.
    5. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin, 2016. "An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 59-73.
    6. Molina Sánchez, Horacio & Bautista Mesa, Rafael, 2018. "La participación en el /Participation in the IASB Due Process," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 429-458, Mayo.
    7. Christoph Pelger & Nicole Spieß, 2017. "On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 64-90, January.
    8. David Procházka, 2015. "Lobbying on the IASB Standards: An analysis of the Lobbyists’ Behaviour over Period 2006–2014," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 4(2), pages 129-143.
    9. Samindi Ishara Hewa & Rajni Mala & Jinhua Chen, 2020. "IASB's independence in the due process: an examination of interest groups’ influence on the development of IFRS 9," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(3), pages 2585-2615, September.
    10. Rey, Andrea & Maglio, Roberto & Rapone, Valerio, 2020. "Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Kohler, Hervé & Pochet, Christine & Le Manh, Anne, 2021. "Auditors as intermediaries in the endogenization of an accounting standard: The case of IFRS 15 within the telecom industry," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Hervé Kohler & Christine Pochet & Anne Le Manh, 2021. "Auditors as intermediaries in the endogenization of an accounting standard: The case of IFRS 15 within the telecom industry," Post-Print hal-03337420, HAL.
    13. Holder, Anthony D. & Karim, Khondkar E. & Lin, Karen Jingrong & Woods, Maef, 2013. "A content analysis of the comment letters to the FASB and IASB: Accounting for contingencies," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 134-153.
    14. Bailey, Wendy J. & Sawers, Kimberly M., 2018. "Moving toward a principle-based approach to U.S. accounting standard setting: A demand for procedural justice and accounting reform," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Okamoto, Noriaki, 2017. "Norm entrepreneur lobbying and persuasion: A case study involving the IASB's modification of an exposure draft," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 129-138.
    16. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    17. Hervé Kohler & Anne Le Manh, 2014. "Etude Exploratoire De La Participation Au « Due Processus » De L'Iasb De L'Industrie Des Telecommunications, Dans Le Cadre Du Projet « Revenue Recognition »," Post-Print hal-01899618, HAL.
    18. Igor Álvarez & José Calvo & Araceli Mora, 2014. "Involving academics in the accounting standard setting process: an application of the Delphi methodology to the assessment of IASB proposals," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(3), pages 765-791, August.
    19. Erb, Carsten & Pelger, Christoph, 2015. "“Twisting words”? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 13-40.
    20. Francesco De Luca & Jenice Prather-Kinsey, 2018. "Legitimacy theory may explain the failure of global adoption of IFRS: the case of Europe and the U.S," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(3), pages 501-534, September.

    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:hal:journl:hal-01902328. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.