The Information Content of First Quarter Financial Reports before and after the Adoption of IFRS: Evidence from the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2005, all companies in the European Union are obliged to use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as accounting standard for their financial statements. This study investigates whether the information content of first quarter financial reports increased at the first time investors were confronted with quarterly figures prepared under IFRS. It is expected that investors react strongly on the first quarter financial report of 2005 because this report used a new, and generally more comprehensive accounting standard. The results of this study show that there is more stock price return and more trading volume in 2005 compared to 2004. Compared with the results of the sensitivity check, this indicates that the information content of first quarter financial reports has increased. Another result of this study is that the management discussion about the accounting change in the first-time IFRS quarterly report is significantly and negatively related to abnormal return and abnormal volume. We interpret this result as follows; when more effort is done to describe the effect of the accounting change, the abnormal return and abnormal trading effect is mitigated. Our evidence is in line with the general findings in the disclosure literature (e.g. Healy and Palepu, 1993).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".