Measuring the effect of international financial reporting standards on quality of accounting performance and efficiency of investment decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to verify the impact of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) adoption on the quality of accounting performance and efficiency of investment decisions in the Saudi business environment as an emerging economy. In this study, content analysis approach is adopted for examining the annual reports of Saudi companies listed in Saudi stock exchange market during two periods: the pre-adoption of IFRS period during the year of 2016 and the post-adoption of IFRS period during the period 2017-2018. The study uses accounting information, accounting conservatism, earning management as alternative variables of accounting performance quality. In addition to accounting profit quality, liquidity and cost of capital are also used as alternative variables for the efficiency of investment decisions. The study finds that there was a positive impact of IFRS adoption on the quality of accounting performance, since it was positively related to both the qualitative characteristics of information and accounting conservatism, while it was negatively related to earning management. IFRS also improves the efficiency of investment decisions, as it was positively related to both profit quality and liquidity while it was negatively related to cost of capital.
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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".