Accounting Transparency and Foreign Market Entry Mode Choices
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
ABSTRACT This study documents that U.S. firms are more likely to form joint ventures with local firms than simply acquiring them when entering foreign countries characterized by lower accounting transparency. Cross-sectional analyses further show that our finding is more pronounced for investments made in countries with other information barriers to U.S. investors, such as greater differences in accounting standards and fewer local firms cross-listed on U.S. stock exchanges, and in countries with weaker protections for outside investors. Using the staggered mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as a quasi-experiment that exogenously improves country-level accounting transparency, we find that U.S. firms reduce joint venture investments to a greater extent in IFRS-adopting countries than in nonadopting countries. Finally, we show that the market reacts more favorably to joint ventures than to acquisitions when cross-border investments take place in countries with lower accounting transparency. Data Availability: Data are available from the sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: D23; F23; G30; G32; G34; M41.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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