The impact of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption and IFRS renouncement on audit fees: The case of Switzerland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have shown that International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption is associated with higher audit fees. We provide additional evidence on this issue by analyzing the Swiss context, which is particularly suitable for two reasons. First, it allows a better estimation of the impact of IFRS adoption on audit fees because the choice of accounting standards (IFRS, US generally accepted accounting principles [GAAPs] or Swiss GAAPs) is left to companies. Accordingly, comparisons can be made within the same institutional context. Second, it is also possible to measure the impact of IFRS renouncement on audit fees because Swiss companies following IFRS can switch back to Swiss GAAPs at any time. Based on a hand‐collected database including 1,651 firm‐year observations over 15 years, we show that, with the exception of very large companies, firms using IFRS pay higher audit fees. We also find that firms switching to IFRS incur additional audit fees in the year preceding the change. By contrast, the return to local GAAPs does not result in lower audit fees, which confirms the stickiness of audit fees reported by several prior studies.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it