Why Not Allow the FASB and IASB Standards to Compete in the U.S.

By Shyam V. Sunder, Ronald A. Dye. 2001

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Finance, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/84949811ea9e8f775424b1d4591c400ee63c37f2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

1. Christian Leuz
2. Peter D. Wysocki
3. Luzi Hail
4. L. Shivakumar
5. Shivaram Rajgopal
6. Wayne R. Landsman
7. Robert M. Bushman
8. Nemit Shroff

In Finance

1. Peter D. Wysocki
2. Christian Leuz
3. Shivaram Rajgopal
4. L. Shivakumar
5. Luzi Hail
6. Campbell R. Harvey
7. John R. Graham
8. Wayne R. Landsman

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Peter D. Wysocki
2. Christian Leuz
3. Shyam V. Sunder
4. Shivaram Rajgopal
5. Campbell R. Harvey
6. John R. Graham
7. L. Shivakumar
8. Robert M. Bushman

Citations in the corpus

• IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry–Based Evidence from Germany's New Market (2003, unknown): “, Pownall and Schipper (1999), Dye and Sunder (2001), Sunder (2002) for this debate.”
• Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Research in Accounting (2010, unknown): “Select references include Ball et al. (2000), Ball (1994, 2001), Benston et al. (2006), Dye and Sunder (2001), Hail et al. (2009), and Watts (2006).”
• Global Accounting Convergence and the Potential Adoption of IFRS by the United States: An Analysis of Economic and Policy Factors (2009, background): “The literature on the economics of accounting standards views monopolies as problematic for a number of reasons (e.g., Ball, 1995; Dye and Sunder, 2001; Sunder, 2002, 2008; Benston et al., 2006; Meeks and Swann, 2008; Stulz, 2008).”
• New institutional accounting and IFRS (2011, background): “However, it is not obvious, nor has it been empirically documented, that one set of mandated global accounting regulations, let alone the specific standards contained in current IFRS, is superior to other possible scenarios (e.g. Dye and Sunder 2001).”
• The pros and cons of regulating corporate reporting: A critical review of the arguments (2010, background): “The authors view competition among standard-setters as a key mechanism in achieving this objective (see also Dye and Sunder, 2001 and Sunder, 2002).”
• Regulatory Competition Among Accounting Standards within and Across International Boundaries (2002, background): “I build on previous work (Dye and Sunder, 2001) to make a case to the contrary: a competitive regulatory regime for accounting standards, within and across national jurisdictions, that allows individual firms to choose from a set of accounting standards is more efficient.”
• A review of the IFRS adoption literature (2016, background): “Setting aside the achievability of global standardization in financial reporting, Dye and Sunder (2001) and Sunder (2011) question whether having a single global set of accounting standards is even desirable.”
• Economic Consequences of Financial Reporting and Disclosure Regulation: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research (2008, unknown): “directions for both questions (e.g., Barth, Clinch and Shibano, 1999; Dye and Sunder, 2001; Coffee, 2002), but very little empirical evidence on these matters.”
• Earnings quality: Evidence from the field (2013, background): “Thus, our evidence finds little practitioner support for academic calls for competition between GAAP and IFRS (e.g., Dye and Sunder 2001, Sunder 2002, Benston et al. 2006 and Kothari et al. 2010) due to implementation concerns and investor confusion.”