TY - JOUR
T1 - Enforcement of Accounting Standards in Europe
T2 - Capital-Market-Based Evidence for the Two-Tier Mechanism in Germany
AU - Hitz, Jörg Markus
AU - Ernstberger, Jürgen
AU - Stich, Michael
N1 - Funding Information:
We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions by Steve Young, the associate editor, and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Ulf Brüggemann, Willem Buijink, Dirk Hachmeister, Stephan Hollander, Olaf Korn, Laurence van Lent, Bernhard Pellens, Christian Stadler, Hung Tran, Herbert Meyer and Axel Berger (former president and vice-president, respectively, of the German Enforcement Panel DPR), two anonymous reviewers of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the German Academic Association for Business Research in Bremen 2010, the participants of the INTACCT workshops in Valencia (February 2009) and Varna (March 2010), of the Annual Congress of the EAA 2010 in Istanbul, of the 2010 AAA Annual Meeting in San Francisco and of the Ruhr-University Doctoral Colloquium in Accounting (October 2009). This research was supported by the Ruhr-University Research School. Jörg-Markus Hitz gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution of the European Commission Research Training Network INTACCT (Contract: MRTN-CT-2006-035850). All remaining errors are ours.
PY - 2012/6
Y1 - 2012/6
N2 - On the background of regulatory initiatives that mandate the establishment of comparable enforcement systems in EU jurisdictions to ascertain consistent and faithful application of IFRS, this paper provides capital-market-based evidence on investor reactions for one specific institutional set-up: the two-tier enforcement system in Germany. In operation since 2005, the German enforcement mechanism consists of a private body, the DPR, which investigates compliance of published financial reports of firms listed on a regulated market segment and, upon error findings, involves the German securities regulator BaFin, which on a second level enforces disclosure of these findings to establish adverse disclosure ('name and shame'). For a sample of error findings published in the period 2005-2009, we investigate short- and long-term market reactions to error announcements. Results for abnormal returns, abnormal trading volumes and abnormal bid-ask spreads indicate that these announcements represent new, negative information and suggest that, despite an enforcement environment that is categorised as weak in the extant literature, the activities of the DPR/BaFin seem to penalise infringing firms and thus provide potential deterrence. Multivariate analyses yield weak evidence that the magnitude of the market value discount is positively associated with the severity of the errors, with the threat of subsequent litigation and with cases in which firms disagreed with the error findings of the DPR.
AB - On the background of regulatory initiatives that mandate the establishment of comparable enforcement systems in EU jurisdictions to ascertain consistent and faithful application of IFRS, this paper provides capital-market-based evidence on investor reactions for one specific institutional set-up: the two-tier enforcement system in Germany. In operation since 2005, the German enforcement mechanism consists of a private body, the DPR, which investigates compliance of published financial reports of firms listed on a regulated market segment and, upon error findings, involves the German securities regulator BaFin, which on a second level enforces disclosure of these findings to establish adverse disclosure ('name and shame'). For a sample of error findings published in the period 2005-2009, we investigate short- and long-term market reactions to error announcements. Results for abnormal returns, abnormal trading volumes and abnormal bid-ask spreads indicate that these announcements represent new, negative information and suggest that, despite an enforcement environment that is categorised as weak in the extant literature, the activities of the DPR/BaFin seem to penalise infringing firms and thus provide potential deterrence. Multivariate analyses yield weak evidence that the magnitude of the market value discount is positively associated with the severity of the errors, with the threat of subsequent litigation and with cases in which firms disagreed with the error findings of the DPR.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84861939232
U2 - 10.1080/09638180.2011.641727
DO - 10.1080/09638180.2011.641727
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84861939232
SN - 0963-8180
VL - 21
SP - 253
EP - 281
JO - European Accounting Review
JF - European Accounting Review
IS - 2
ER -