United States GAAP versus international accounting standards: Convergence or divergence. Evidence from Form 20-F
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous accounting standards and practices affect the financial statements analyzed by investors and creditors thus bringing into question the comparability of such statements. Firms operating internationally often apply accounting methods and practices accepted by other global firms and investors. Comparability increases, or harmonization occurs, as firms converge toward a few accepted methods or when the number of methods applied decrease. This study analyzes the comparability of profits based on U.S. principles versus International Accounting Standards and other foreign accounting principles. The data for the analysis consisted of the reconciliation items and profits reported in Form 20-F filed by foreign corporations for the time period 1990–2000. A profit-related index of comparability—which has a value of one if there is no difference in U.S. and foreign profits—was calculated and a t-test was applied to determine if the index was different from the value of one and whether it had changed over time. Overall, the index was not found to be significantly different than one, suggesting that harmonization does exist. The relationship between the index and individual reconciliation items was studied through regression analysis to determine which areas contributed toward the differences in reported profits. The analysis was performed for IASs, Canadian, Dutch, Chilean, French, Mexican and United Kingdom accounting principles, as well as the overall sample. The reconciliation items found to be significant regarding International Accounting Standards were: deferred charges, start-up costs, extraordinary items, minority interest, leases and inflation adjustment.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".