Value Relevance Change Under International Accounting Standards: An Empirical Study of Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In face of broad adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering its quality and acceptability. This paper reports a study that examines changes in value relevance with a sample of Peru firms mandated to use international accounting standards between 1999 and 2007. The period under study is broken into a period of International Accounting Standards (IAS) between 1999 and 2001, a period of early IFRS between 2002 and 2004, and a more recent period of IFRS between 2005 and 2007 by major changes to accounting standards. The empirical results generally indicate that value relevance improved from the IAS period to the early IFRS period when the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) took over the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), but worsened from the early IFRS period to the recent IFRS period when more accounting standards started to reflect IASB's preference for fair value measurement of assets and liabilities. Quality weakens to a greater extent for firms with more discretion for fair value estimates. Further analysis shows that such changes are less likely to result from changes in economic conditions, but from the changes of the standards. The findings are particularly alarming in face of rising IFRS adoptions and call for quality improvement to IFRS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".