Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1
-
2
)-(
1
-
2
1
+
1
Where
1
= sample mean value of financial risk under IFRS = 9.442,
2
= sample mean value of financial risk under IGAAP = 9.140,
1
-
2
= 0 as
1
=
2
1
= sample size under IFRS = 16
2
= sample size under IGAAP = 16
p
= pooled standard deviation of the sample
where,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
with
1
= sample standard deviation of financial risk under IFRS = 3.764,
2
= sample standard deviation of financial risk under IGAAP = 4.001
Therefore, given the above values,
Critical region
reject H
0
at 5%
Accept H
0
-1.697 0 t
204
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
= [15 x (3.764)
2
] + [15 x (4.001)
2
]
16+16-2
= (14.168 + 16.008) (mean where n
1
=n
2
)
2
= 15.088
Thus, inserting all the values for calculating t :
t = (9.442-9.140)
(15.088)
= 0.057
This value does not lie in the critical region, but lies in the acceptance region
and so H
0
gets accepted. Thus, there is no statistical evidence at 5% level of
significance, to prove that financial risk decreases under IFRS voluntary adoption as
compared to IGAAP. Therefore, even though differences can be observed in financial
risk in absolute terms, there is not enough evidence to prove the same statistically.
V.2.ii Hypothesis 2-Investment activities and IFRS
Hypothesis 2 aims to test the impact on investment activities after voluntary
IFRS adoption by Indian companies. Investment activities of the company are
associated with level of investment in fixed assets as they would reap return in the
long term, investing activities through cash flows of the company and returns on
assets, that is, ratio of net income to investment in fixed assets of the company. So,
the data is collected for each of the parameters to determine the investment activities
of the company under study. The variables used to study hypothesis 2 are defined as
under:
205
1) Investment in fixed assets: Level of investment in fixed assets by company
reflects its ability to reap returns in the long run. The investments in fixed assets
could also be for expansion purposes in future. To evaluate investments in fixed
assets, gross value of additions made to fixed assets (InvFA) (Aubert &
Grudnitski, 2011) is taken. Since these are gross values and vary in size,
necessary logarithmic transformations are made for data normality.
2) Investing cash flow: The level of cash flow from investing activities reflects the
net cash flows made for investing in the overall business of the company. The
cash flow from investing activities would usually be negative in balance. But in
case, this is positive, it means that the company had either sold off large part of
its assets or was efficient enough to collect loans and advances. To evaluate
investing cash flows, the value as reported in cash flow statements (InvCF)
(Aubert & Grudnitski, 2011) is taken. Since these are actual values and vary in
size, necessary logarithmic transformations are made for data normality.
3) Return on assets: The return on assets determines the ability of management to
earn reasonable return on its assets. This helps to understand whether investments
made in assets of the company were well-managed and have good future
prospects. This enables to determine whether management is able to earn a return
on assets that is higher than companys cost of borrowings. For this, return on
assets ratio is used to ascertain the ratio between returns and the total assets of the
company. The return on assets (ROA) (Kabir et al. 2010; Padrtova & Vochozka,
2011) is calculated using the formula=Returns/Total Assets.
Thus, the variables for investment activities are defined and accordingly
calculated. The same are tabulated as under:
206
Table V.2.ii.a: Hypothesis 2 variables
Variables Equations
(1) Investments in fixed assets Gross value of additions made-
Logarithmic transformation done
(2) Investing cash flows Actual value of cash flow from
investment activities -Logarithmic
transformation done
(3) Return on assets Returns /Total assets
V.2.ii.a Financial Matrix-Hypothesis 2
(a) The above defined variables are used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 2 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-
investment activities under IFRS-based financial statements. The financial
matrix is as under:
Table V.2.ii.a.ai: Financial Matrix under IFRS-Hypothesis 2
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under IFRS
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 2-
Investment
activities
InvFA InvCF ROA
2007-08 Dabur India 2.8574 3.6200 0.2271 1.7801
2008-09 Dabur India 2.9273 3.6174 0.2091 1.8019
2009-10 Dabur India 3.0873 3.6143 0.2161 1.8289
2010-11 Dabur India 3.3328 3.5209 0.1398 1.9001
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 3.6804 3.5167 0.2571 1.9309
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 3.8919 3.4850 0.2682 1.9852
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 3.9141 0.0000 0.2281 2.1969
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 3.9540 3.3485 0.2194 2.0043
2007-08 NTBL 2.7429 3.6306 0.0434 1.8683
2008-09 NTBL 2.7433 3.6438 0.0403 1.8754
2009-10 NTBL 2.7393 -0.0494 0.0213 1.5900
207
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under IFRS
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 2-
Investment
activities
InvFA InvCF ROA
2010-11 NTBL 2.7362 -0.0315 0.0319 1.5800
2007-08 Rolta India 3.1377 3.5698 0.0792 1.9029
2008-09 Rolta India 3.3196 3.5762 0.0714 1.9536
2009-10 Rolta India 3.4063 3.5732 0.0758 1.9728
2010-11 Rolta India 3.4871 3.5608 0.0948 1.9801
Mean 3.2473 2.8873 0.1389 1.8845
Standard Deviation 0.4444 1.4476 0.0902 0.1521
(b) The above defined variables are also used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 2 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-
investment activities under IGAAP-based financial statements. The financial
matrix is as under:
Table V.2.ii.a.aii: Financial Matrix under IGAAP-Hypothesis 2
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under
IGAAP
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 2-
Investment
activities
InvFA InvCF ROA
2007-08 Dabur India 2.8631 3.5294 0.2314 1.7439
2008-09 Dabur India 2.9337 3.5275 0.2107 1.7687
2009-10 Dabur India 3.0068 3.5292 0.2449 1.7648
2010-11 Dabur India 3.2960 3.4077 0.1488 1.8501
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 3.8301 3.3981 0.2608 1.9481
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 3.8904 3.5325 0.2722 1.9937
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 3.9163 0.0000 0.2295 2.1979
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 3.9555 3.8463 0.8094 1.7857
208
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under
IGAAP
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 2-
Investment
activities
InvFA InvCF ROA
2007-08 NTBL 2.7701 3.5424 0.0491 1.8350
2008-09 NTBL 2.7896 3.5585 0.0536 1.8422
2009-10 NTBL 2.7892 3.5589 0.0430 1.8482
2010-11 NTBL 2.7894 3.5589 0.0597 1.8388
2007-08 Rolta India 3.1557 3.4671 0.1047 1.8580
2008-09 Rolta India 3.3487 3.4743 0.1074 1.9087
2009-10 Rolta India 3.4311 3.4710 0.1090 1.9296
2010-11 Rolta India 3.5139 3.4585 0.1103 1.9493
Mean 3.2675 3.3038 0.1903 1.8789
Standard Deviation 0.4459 0.8867 0.1840 0.1117
(c) On the basis of the above two financial matrices-one on the basis of IFRS and
other on the basis of IGAAP, financial matrix comprising of difference
between the two sets is made for Hypothesis 2 to bring out the difference
between the different ratios and also the difference between means for further
analysis. The financial matrix is as under:
Table V.2.ii.a.aiii: Financial Matrix of Difference between IFRS and IGAAP
for Hypothesis 2
Year
Name of
company
Difference in financial
Indicators Under IFRS and
IGAAP (IFRS-IGAAP)
Difference
(IFRS-IGAAP)
Investment
activities InvFA InvCF ROA
2007-08 Dabur India -0.0057 0.0906 -0.0043 0.0362
2008-09 Dabur India -0.0064 0.0899 -0.0016 0.0332
2009-10 Dabur India 0.0805 0.0851 -0.0288 0.0641
2010-11 Dabur India 0.0369 0.1131 -0.0089 0.0499
209
Year
Name of
company
Difference in financial
Indicators Under IFRS and
IGAAP (IFRS-IGAAP)
Difference
(IFRS-IGAAP)
Investment
activities InvFA InvCF ROA
2007-08 Infosys Ltd -0.1498 0.1186 -0.0037 -0.0172
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 0.0015 -0.0475 -0.0040 -0.0086
2009-10 Infosys Ltd -0.0023 0.0000 -0.0014 -0.0010
2010-11 Infosys Ltd -0.0015 -0.4978 -0.5899 0.2186
2007-08 NTBL -0.0272 0.0882 -0.0058 0.0333
2008-09 NTBL -0.0463 0.0853 -0.0133 0.0332
2009-10 NTBL -0.0499 -3.6083 -0.0217 -0.2582
2010-11 NTBL -0.0532 -3.5905 -0.0278 -0.2589
2007-08 Rolta India -0.0180 0.1027 -0.0255 0.0449
2008-09 Rolta India -0.0292 0.1019 -0.0360 0.0450
2009-10 Rolta India -0.0248 0.1021 -0.0332 0.0432
2010-11 Rolta India -0.0269 0.1023 -0.0154 0.0308
Mean -0.0202 -0.4165 -0.0514 0.0055
Standard Deviation 0.0480 1.2515 0.1441 0.1153
From the above financial matrix, in assessing the changes in accounting
figures due to IFRS and IGAAP, the following table presents summary statistics for
these three ratios and also the differences between IFRS-based and IGAAP-based
financial ratios for Hypothesis 2.
Table V.2.ii.a.aiv: Descriptive Statistics of Financial Ratios (Hypothesis 2)
Ratio
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
InvFA 3.2473 0.4444 3.2675 0.4459 -0.0202 0.0480
InvCF 2.8873 1.4476 3.3038 0.8867 -0.4165 1.2515
ROA 0.1389 0.0902 0.1903 0.1840 -0.0514 0.1441
210
From the table above, it is observed that in absolute terms, means of all the
three variables have not improved under IFRS as compared to IGAAP given the
negative differences between these two sets of ratios.
Based on each ratio, investment activities are calculated as the standard
deviation of the three parameters for each company for each of the four years. There
are two sets of investment activitiesone IFRS-based and the other IGAAP-based.
The table presents the descriptive details for the economic activity of investment
activities as under:
Table V.2.ii.a.av: Descriptive Statistics of Investment Activities (Hypothesis 2)
Economic
activity
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Investment
activities
1.8845 0.1521 1.8789 0.1117 0.0055 0.1153
From the above table, it is observed that in absolute terms, mean of investment
activities is more in IFRS as compared to IGAAP. Even though there is marginal
improvement in investment activities in IFRS as compared to IGAAP in absolute
terms, the testing of hypothesis of impact on investment activities is done using the t-
test statistic at 5% level of significance.
V.2.ii.b Testing of Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2:
H
0
: Investment activities did not increase after the adoption of IFRS voluntarily, that is,
there is no change in the mean values of
1
Investment activities under IFRS and
2
Investment activities under IGAAP, therefore, H
0
:
1
=
2
H
1
: Investment activities increased after the adoption of IFRS voluntarily, that is, mean
of investment activities under IFRS (
1
) increased as compared to mean of investment
activities under IGAAP (
2
), therefore, H
1
:
1
>
2
211
So, the hypotheses are as under:
H
0
:
1
=
2
(1 = IFRS, 2 = IGAAP)
H
1
:
1
>
2
(right one-tailed)
Signifcance level, = 0.05
Degrees of freedom, v = 16+16-2 = 30
Critical region is t > 1.697
Graph V.2.ii.b.bi: Hpothesis 2 testing-right tail with critical region
Under H
0
, the test statistic is :
=
1
-
2
)-(
1
-
2
1
+
1
Where
1
= sample mean value of investment activities under IFRS = 1.8845,
2
= sample mean value of investment activities under IGAAP = 1.8789,
1
-
2
= 0 as
1
=
2
1
= sample size under IFRS = 16
2
= sample size under IGAAP = 16
p
= pooled standard deviation of the sample
where,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
with
1
= sample standard deviation of investment activities under IFRS = 0.152,
2
= sample standard deviation of investment activities under IGAAP = 0.112
Critical region
reject H
0
at 5%
Accept H
0
0 1.697 t
212
Therefore, given the above values,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
= [15 x (0.152)
2
] + [15 x (0.112)
2
]
16+16-2
= (0.023 + 0.013) (mean where n
1
=n
2
)
2
= 0.018
Thus, inserting all the values for calculating t :
t = (1.8845-1.8789)
(0.018)
= 0.881
This value does not lie in the critical region, but lies in the acceptance region
and so H
0
gets accepted. Thus, there is no statistical evidence at 5% level of
significance, to prove that investment activities increase under IFRS voluntary
adoption as compared to IGAAP. Therefore, even though positive differences can be
observed in investment activities in absolute terms, there is not enough evidence to
prove the same statistically.
V.2.iii Hypothesis 3-Mergers and acquisitions activities and IFRS
Hypothesis 3 aims to test the impact on mergers and acquisitions activities
after voluntary IFRS adoption by Indian companies. Mergers and acquisitions
activities of the company are associated with diluted earnings per share (EPS), equity
ratio and operating risk measured by fixed asset turnover ratio because when any
company undergoes mergers and acquisitions activities, the impact of the same is
reflected on these variables. So, the data is collected for each of the parameters to
determine the mergers and acquisitions activities of the company under study. The
variables used to study hypothesis 3 are defined as under:
213
1) Diluted earnings per share: When mergers and acquisitions activities happen in
any company, the same is reflected in the earnings per share (EPS) level of the
company because the EPS will undergo change due to increase in the stock of the
company and there would be reduction in the per share value of the company.
The trend in EPS is one of the major factors affecting the market value of
companys shares. Diluted EPS is the most conservative approach because it is
assumed that all other convertible stocks have been converted into common
stock. This value is to alert equity shareholders to recognize the level of
uncertainty associated with future EPS due to additional conversion of shares. To
evaluate diluted EPS (DEPS) (Aubert & Grudnitski, 2011), reported figure from
Balance Sheet is taken. Since these are actual values and vary in size, necessary
logarithmic transformations are made for data normality.
2) Equity ratio: The equity ratio helps to know the proportion of equity used to
finance companys assets. In case of mergers and acquisitions activities, there is
increase in equity as well as assets of the company. Therefore, this ratio will help
to determine the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the companys proportion
of equity used to finance its assets. For this, equity ratio is used to ascertain the
ratio between total owners equity and total assets of the company. The equity
ratio (ER) (Lantto & Shalstrom, 2009; Padrtova & Vochozka, 2011) is calculated
using the formula=Total owners equity/Total Assets.
3) Operating risk: The operating risk determines the risk associated with
companys operations due to mergers and acquisitions. For this, fixed asset
turnover ratio is used to determine the relationship between net sales and net
fixed assets of the company because post-mergers and acquisitions the impact is
felt on net sales (revenues) and fixed assets of any company. The fixed asset
214
turnover ratio (FAT) (Aubert & Grudnitski, 2011; Padrtova & Vochozka, 2011)
is calculated using the formula=Net sales/Net fixed assets
Thus, the variables for investment activities are defined and accordingly
calculated. The same are tabulated as under:
Table V.2.iii.a: Hypothesis 3 variables
Variables Equations
(1) Diluted EPS Actual value as reported-
Logarithmic transformation done
(2) Equity ratio Total owners equity/Total assets
(3) Operating risk-Fixed asset
turnover ratio
Net sales/Net fixed assets
V.2.iii.a Financial Matrix-Hypothesis 3
(a) The above defined variables are used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 3 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-mergers
and acquisitions activities under IFRS-based financial statements. The
financial matrix is as under:
Table V.2.iii.a.ai: Financial Matrix under IFRS-Hypothesis 3
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under IFRS
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 3-
Mergers and
acquisitions
activities
DEPS ER FAT
2007-08 Dabur India 0.5752 0.4801 5.1068 2.6442
2008-09 Dabur India 0.6493 0.5116 5.0931 2.6063
2009-10 Dabur India 0.7505 0.5476 3.8444 1.8476
2010-11 Dabur India 0.5065 0.4057 2.3539 1.0968
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 1.9087 0.8704 3.4870 1.3175
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 2.0200 0.8661 4.0232 1.5975
215
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under IFRS
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 3-
Mergers and
acquisitions
activities
DEPS ER FAT
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 2.0370 0.8718 4.2716 1.7277
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 2.0770 0.8733 4.7911 2.0068
2007-08 NTBL 0.1761 0.5957 0.1892 0.2386
2008-09 NTBL 0.2553 0.6041 0.1600 0.2338
2009-10 NTBL 0.1673 0.6224 0.1456 0.2693
2010-11 NTBL 0.3032 0.6472 0.1544 0.2528
2007-08 Rolta India 1.0342 0.5879 1.0465 0.2613
2008-09 Rolta India 1.0708 0.5335 0.7932 0.2687
2009-10 Rolta India 1.1544 0.5235 0.7329 0.3213
2010-11 Rolta India 1.3377 0.5280 0.7146 0.4240
Mean 1.0015 0.6293 2.3067 1.0696
Standard Deviation 0.6960 0.1549 1.9938 0.8969
(b) The above defined variables are also used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 3 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-mergers
and acquisitions activities under IGAAP-based financial statements. The
financial matrix is as under:
216
Table V.2.iii.a.aii: Financial Matrix under IGAAP-Hypothesis 3
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under
IGAAP
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 3-
Mergers and
acquisitions
activities
DEPS ER FAT
2007-08 Dabur India 0.5832 0.4313 5.0748 2.6381
2008-09 Dabur India 0.6542 0.4434 5.0171 2.5820
2009-10 Dabur India 0.7619 0.4589 5.0114 2.5454
2010-11 Dabur India 0.5119 0.3651 2.6447 1.2759
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 1.9099 0.7721 3.4942 1.3672
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 2.0188 0.8297 4.0517 1.6293
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 2.0403 0.8442 4.2469 1.7262
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 2.0778 0.8387 4.7745 2.0124
2007-08 NTBL 0.1761 0.8756 0.1205 0.4208
2008-09 NTBL 0.2553 0.6237 0.1351 0.2546
2009-10 NTBL 0.1673 0.6543 0.1433 0.2883
2010-11 NTBL 0.3032 0.7083 0.1477 0.2894
2007-08 Rolta India 1.1520 0.5382 1.0489 0.3287
2008-09 Rolta India 1.2603 0.5271 0.7513 0.3757
2009-10 Rolta India 1.1965 0.6877 0.6977 0.2909
2010-11 Rolta India 1.3950 0.5215 0.6860 0.4641
Mean 1.0290 0.6325 2.3779 1.1556
Standard Deviation 0.7015 0.1682 2.0772 0.9266
(c) On the basis of the above two financial matrices-one on the basis of IFRS and
other on the basis of IGAAP, financial matrix comprising of the difference
between the two sets is made for Hypothesis 3 to bring out the difference
between the different ratios and also the difference between means for further
analysis. The financial matrix is as under:
217
Table V.2.iii.a.aiii: Financial Matrix of Difference between IFRS and IGAAP
for Hypothesis 3
Year
Name of
company
Difference in financial Indicators
Under IFRS and IGAAP (IFRS-
IGAAP)
Difference
(IFRS-
IGAAP)
Mergers and
acquisitions
activities
DEPS ER FAT
2007-08 Dabur India -0.0080 0.0488 0.0321 0.0061
2008-09 Dabur India -0.0048 0.0682 0.0760 0.0244
2009-10 Dabur India -0.0114 0.0887 -1.1670 -0.6978
2010-11 Dabur India -0.0054 0.0406 -0.2909 -0.1791
2007-08 Infosys Ltd -0.0012 0.0983 -0.0073 -0.0496
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 0.0012 0.0363 -0.0286 -0.0318
2009-10 Infosys Ltd -0.0033 0.0277 0.0247 0.0015
2010-11 Infosys Ltd -0.0008 0.0346 0.0166 -0.0055
2007-08 NTBL 0.0000 -0.2799 0.0686 -0.1822
2008-09 NTBL 0.0000 -0.0197 0.0249 -0.0208
2009-10 NTBL 0.0000 -0.0319 0.0023 -0.0191
2010-11 NTBL 0.0000 -0.0611 0.0067 -0.0366
2007-08 Rolta India -0.1178 0.0497 -0.0024 -0.0674
2008-09 Rolta India -0.1895 0.0064 0.0420 -0.1070
2009-10 Rolta India -0.0420 -0.1642 0.0353 0.0304
2010-11 Rolta India -0.0573 0.0065 0.0285 -0.0402
Mean -0.0275 -0.0032 -0.0712 -0.0859
Standard Deviation 0.0535 0.0974 0.3037 0.1749
From the above financial matrix, in assessing the changes in accounting
figures due to IFRS and IGAAP, the following table presents summary statistics for
these three ratios and also the differences between IFRS-based and IGAAP-based
financial ratios for Hypothesis 3.
218
Table V.2.iii.a.aiv: Descriptive Statistics of Financial Ratios (Hypothesis 3)
Ratio
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
DEPS 1.0015 0.6960 1.0290 0.7015 -0.0275 0.0535
ER 0.6293 0.1549 0.6325 0.1682 -0.0032 0.0974
FAT 2.3067 1.9938 2.3779 2.0772 -0.0712 0.3037
From the table above, it is observed that in absolute terms, means of all the
three variables have not improved under IFRS as compared to IGAAP given the
negative differences between these two sets of ratios.
Based on each ratio, mergers and acquisitions activities are calculated as the
standard deviation of the three parameters for each company for each of the four
years. There are two sets of investment activitiesone IFRS-based and the other
IGAAP-based. The table presents the descriptive details for the economic activity of
mergers and acquisitions activities as under:
Table V.2.iii.a.av: Descriptive Statistics of Mergers and Acquisitions Activities
(Hypothesis 3)
Economic
activity
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Mergers &
acquisitions
1.0696 0.8969 1.1556 0.9266 -0.0859 0.1749
From the above table, it is observed that in absolute terms, mean of mergers
and acquisitions activities is lower for IFRS as compared to IGAAP. This would mean
that the impact on mergers and acquisitions activities due to IFRS is lower as
compared to IGAAP in absolute terms. The testing of hypothesis of impact on
mergers and acquisitions is done using the t-test statistic at 5% level of significance.
219
V.2.iii.b Testing of Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3:
H
0
: Mergers and acquisitions activities did not improve after the adoption of IFRS
voluntarily, that is, there is no change in the mean values of
1
mergers and
acquisitions activities under IFRS and
2
mergers and acquisitions activities under
IGAAP, therefore, H
0
:
1
=
2
H
1
: Mergers and acquisitions activities improved after the adoption of IFRS
voluntarily, that is, mean of mergers and acquisitions activities under IFRS (
1
)
increased as compared to mean of mergers and acquisitions activities under IGAAP
(
2
), therefore, H
1
:
1
>
2
So, the hypotheses are as under:
H
0
:
1
=
2
(1 = IFRS, 2 = IGAAP)
H
1
:
1
>
2
(right one-tailed)
Signifcance level, = 0.05
Degrees of freedom, v = 16+16-2 = 30
Critical region is t > 1.697
Graph V.2.iii.b.bi: Hpothesis 3 testing-right tail with critical region
Under H
0
, the test statistic is
0 1.697 t
Critical region
reject H
0
at 5%
Accept H
0
220
=
1
-
2
)-(
1
-
2
1
+
1
Where
1
= sample mean value of mergers and acquisitons activities under IFRS =
1.0696,
2
= sample mean value of mergers and acquistions activities under IGAAP = 1.1556
1
-
2
= 0 as
1
=
2
1
= sample size under IFRS = 16
2
= sample size under IGAAP = 16
p
= pooled standard deviation of the sample
where,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
with
1
= sample standard deviation of mergers and acquistions activities under IFRS
= 0.897,
2
= sample standard deviation of mergers and acquistions activities under IGAAP =
0.927
Therefore, given the above values,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
= [15 x (0.897)
2
] + [15 x (0.927)
2
]
16+16-2
= (0.8046 + 0.8593) (mean where n
1
=n
2
)
2
= 0.8319
Thus, inserting all the values for calculating t :
t = (1.0696-1.1556)
(0.8319)
= -0.2924
221
This value does not lie in the critical region, but lies in the acceptance region
and so H
0
gets accepted. Thus, there is no statistical evidence at 5% level of
significance, to prove that mergers and acquistions activities increase under IFRS
voluntary adoption as compared to IGAAP. There were negative differences observed
in mergers and acquisitons activities in absolute terms, but there is not enough
evidence to prove the increase in these activities statistically.
V.2.iv Hypothesis 4-Diversification activities and IFRS
Hypothesis 4 aims to test the impact on diversification activities after
voluntary IFRS adoption by Indian companies. Diversification activities of the
company are associated with growth of sales over previous years and operating cash
flows because when any company undergoes diversification activities, the impact of
the same is reflected on these variables. So the data is collected for each of the
parameters to determine the diversification activities of the company under study. The
variables used to study hypothesis 4 are defined as under:
1) Growth: When diversification activities happen in any company, the same is
reflected in the sales growth of the company because the sales variation over
previous year will undergo change due to increase in the diversified activities of
the company. The sales growth can be either negative or positive in nature
depending upon related factors to diversification. To evaluate growth, sales
variation over previous year is taken. The sales growth (SAGR) (Byard et al.
2010) is calculated using the formula=(Current year sales-Previous year
sales)/Previous year sales.
2) Operating cash flow: The level of cash flow from operating activities reflects
the net cash flows made for operations of all the businesses/segments of the
company. The cash flow from operations activities would usually be positive in
222
balance. But in case this is negative or very low in nature, it means that the
company is either inefficient in collecting accounts receivable and inventories or
there has been substantial reduction in accrued liabilities. In short, there have
been certain issues in financial position, especially short-term liquidity of the
company. One of the reasons could also be that more time is required for the
diversification activities of the company to settle down for proper reflection in
operating cash flows. To evaluate cash flows from operations, the value as
reported in cash flow statements (OpCF) (Aubert & Grudnitski, 2011) is taken.
Since these are actual values and vary in size, necessary logarithmic
transformations are made for data normality.
Thus, the variables for investment activities are defined and accordingly
calculated. The same are tabulated as under:
Table V.2.iv.a: Hypothesis 4 variables
Variables Equations
(1) Growth-sales variation over
years
(Current year sales-Previous year
sales)/Previous year sales
(2) Operating cash flows Actual value of cash flow from operations
-Logarithmic transformation done
V.2.iv.a Financial Matrix-Hypothesis 4
(a) The above defined variables are used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 4 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-
diversification activities under IFRS-based financial statements. The financial
matrix is as under:
223
Table V.2.iv.a.ai: Financial Matrix under IFRS-Hypothesis 4
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under
IFRS
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 4-
Diversification
activities
SAGR OpCF
2007-08 Dabur India 0.1576 2.5805 1.7132
2008-09 Dabur India 0.1893 2.5327 1.6570
2009-10 Dabur India 0.2087 2.7402 1.7900
2010-11 Dabur India 0.1959 2.6930 1.7657
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 0.1997 3.6110 2.4121
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 0.2987 3.8181 2.4886
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 0.0484 3.8382 2.6798
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 0.2093 3.7714 2.5188
2007-08 NTBL 0.6087 2.1989 1.1244
2008-09 NTBL -0.3358 1.6986 1.4385
2009-10 NTBL 0.0176 1.7094 1.1963
2010-11 NTBL 0.0645 1.7748 1.2094
2007-08 Rolta India 0.5072 2.5385 1.4364
2008-09 Rolta India 0.2803 2.5565 1.6095
2009-10 Rolta India 0.1164 2.6066 1.7608
2010-11 Rolta India 0.1781 2.8481 1.8880
Mean 0.1840 2.7198 1.7930
Standard Deviation 0.2073 0.7179 0.4930
(b) The above defined variables are also used to build a financial matrix for
Hypothesis 4 to bring out financial indicators and economic activity-
diversification activities under IGAAP-based financial statements. The
financial matrix is as under:
224
Table V.2.iv.a.aii: Financial Matrix under IGAAP-Hypothesis 4
Year
Name of
company
Financial Indicators Under
IGAAP
Economic
activity under
Hypothesis 4-
Diversification
activities
SAGR OpCF
2007-08 Dabur India 0.1519 2.5822 1.7184
2008-09 Dabur India 0.1827 2.5082 1.6444
2009-10 Dabur India 0.2056 2.6819 1.7510
2010-11 Dabur India 0.2029 2.6999 1.7657
2007-08 Infosys Ltd 0.2015 3.6110 2.4109
2008-09 Infosys Ltd 0.2996 3.7263 2.4231
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 0.0484 3.7927 2.6476
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 0.2093 3.6769 2.4520
2007-08 NTBL 0.4199 2.1989 1.2579
2008-09 NTBL 0.1933 1.6986 1.0644
2009-10 NTBL 0.0511 1.7094 1.1726
2010-11 NTBL 0.0232 1.7748 1.2386
2007-08 Rolta India 0.5072 2.5553 1.4483
2008-09 Rolta India 0.2804 2.5566 1.6096
2009-10 Rolta India 0.1164 2.6073 1.7613
2010-11 Rolta India 0.1781 2.8405 1.8826
Mean 0.2045 2.7013 1.7655
Standard Deviation 0.1279 0.6949 0.4921
(c) On the basis of the above two financial matrices-one on the basis of IFRS and
other on the basis of IGAAP, financial matrix comprising of the difference
between the two sets is made for Hypothesis 4 to bring out the difference
between the different ratios and also difference between means for further
analysis. The financial matrix is as under:
225
Table V.2.iv.a.aiii: Financial Matrix of Difference between IFRS and IGAAP
for Hypothesis 4
Year
Name of
company
Difference in financial
Indicators Under IFRS and
IGAAP (IFRS-IGAAP)
Difference
(IFRS-IGAAP)
Diversification
activities SAGR OpCF
2007-08 Dabur India 0.0057 -0.0017 -0.0052
2008-09 Dabur India 0.0066 0.0246 0.0127
2009-10 Dabur India 0.0031 0.0583 0.0390
2010-11 Dabur India -0.0069 -0.0070 0.0000
2007-08 Infosys Ltd -0.0018 0.0000 0.0013
2008-09 Infosys Ltd -0.0009 0.0918 0.0656
2009-10 Infosys Ltd 0.0000 0.0455 0.0322
2010-11 Infosys Ltd 0.0000 0.0945 0.0668
2007-08 NTBL 0.1887 0.0000 -0.1335
2008-09 NTBL -0.5291 0.0000 0.3741
2009-10 NTBL -0.0335 0.0000 0.0237
2010-11 NTBL 0.0413 0.0000 -0.0292
2007-08 Rolta India 0.0000 -0.0168 -0.0119
2008-09 Rolta India 0.0000 -0.0001 -0.0001
2009-10 Rolta India 0.0000 -0.0007 -0.0005
2010-11 Rolta India 0.0000 0.0076 0.0053
Mean -0.0205 0.0185 0.0275
Standard Deviation 0.1442 0.0350 0.1029
From the above financial matrix, in assessing the changes in accounting
figures due to IFRS and IGAAP, the following table presents summary statistics for
these two ratios and also the differences between IFRS-based and IGAAP-based
financial ratios for Hypothesis 4.
226
Table V.2.iv.a.aiv: Descriptive Statistics of Financial Ratios (Hypothesis 4)
Ratio
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
SAGR 0.1840 0.2073 0.2045 0.1279 -0.0205 0.1442
OpCF 2.7198 0.7179 2.7013 0.6949 0.0185 0.0350
From the table above, it is observed that in absolute terms, mean of sales
growth has not improved under IFRS as compared to IGAAP given the negative
difference between these two sets of ratios. The mean of operating cash flows has
improved under IFRS as compared to IGAAP.
Based on each ratio, diversification activities are calculated as the standard
deviation of the two parameters for each company for each of the four years. There
are two sets of investment activitiesone IFRS-based and the other IGAAP-based.
The table presents the descriptive details for the economic activity of diversification
activities as under:
Table V.2.iv.a.av: Descriptive Statistics of Diversification Activities
(Hypothesis 4)
Economic
activity
IFRS IGAAP Difference (IFRS-IGAAP)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Diversification 1.7930 0.4930 1.7655 0.4921 0.0275 0.1029
From the above table, it is observed that in absolute terms, mean of
diversification activities is more in IFRS as compared to IGAAP. Even though there is
marginal improvement in impact of diversification activities in IFRS as compared to
IGAAP in absolute terms, the testing of hypothesis of impact on diversification
activities is done using the t-test statistic at 5% level of significance.
227
V.2.iv.b Testing of Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4:
H
0
: Diversification activities did not increase after the adoption of IFRS voluntarily,
that is, there is no change in the mean values of
1
diversification activities under IFRS
and
2
diversification activities under IGAAP, therefore, H
0
:
1
=
2
H
1
: Diversification activities improved after the adoption of IFRS voluntarily, that is,
mean of diversification activities under IFRS (
1
) increased as compared to mean of
diversification activities under IGAAP (
2
), therefore, H
1
:
1
>
2
So, the hypotheses are as under:
H
0
:
1
=
2
(1 = IFRS, 2 = IGAAP)
H
1
:
1
>
2
(right one-tailed)
Signifcance level, = 0.05
Degrees of freedom, v = 16+16-2 = 30
Critical region is t > 1.697
Graph V.2.iv.b.bi: Hpothesis 4 testing-right tail with critical region
Under H
0
, the test statistic is
=
1
-
2
)-(
1
-
2
1
+
1
Where
1
= sample mean value of diversification activities under IFRS = 1.793
Critical region
reject H
0
at 5%
Accept H
0
0 1.697 t
228
2
= sample mean value of diversification activities under IGAAP = 1.766
1
-
2
= 0 as
1
=
2
1
= sample size under IFRS = 16
2
= sample size under IGAAP = 16
p
= pooled standard deviation of the sample
where,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
with
1
= sample standard deviation of diversificaiton activities under IFRS = 0.493,
2
= sample standard deviation of diversification activities under IGAAP = 0.492
Therefore, given the above values,
p
= (n
1
-1) (
1
)
2
+ (n
2
-1) (
2
)
2
n
1
+n
2
-2
= [15 x (0.493)
2
] + [15 x (0.492)
2
]
16+16-2
= (0.243 + 0.242) (mean where n
1
=n
2
)
2
= 0.2425
Thus, inserting all the values for calculating t :
t = (1.793-1.766)
(0.2425
= 0.321
This value does not lie in the critical region, but lies in the acceptance region
and so H
0
gets accepted. Thus, there is no statistical evidence at 5% level of
significance, to prove that diversification activities increase under IFRS voluntary
adoption as compared to IGAAP. Therefore, even though positive differences can be
observed in diversification activities in absolute terms, there is not enough evidence to
prove the same statistically.
229
V.3 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The study provides evidence of the impact of IFRS voluntary adoption on
accounting numbers and on the key financial ratios used by financial analysts,
investors and other financial institutions as key perforamnce indicators. The study
shows how key finanical ratios change when companies adopt IFRS, even though on
voluntary basis.
The results of the study indicate that financial statements in IFRS change the
magnitude of key accounting ratios of Indian companies for each economic activity.
These are interpreted as under:
1) Finanical risks: The results indicate increase in quick ratio and price earning
ratios and slightly decreasing the return on equity and gearing ratios. Since
financial risk is derived from these parameters, the results indicate increase in the
financial risk, in absolute numbers.
2) Investment activities: The results indicate decrease in investment in fixed assets,
cash flows through investing activities and return on assets. Since investment
activities is derived from these parameters, results indicate marginal increase in
the investment activites, in absolute numbers.
3) Mergers and acquisitions activities: The results indicate decrease in diluted
earnings per share, equity ratio and fixed asset turnover. Since mergers and
acquistions activities is derived from these parameters, results indicate decrease
in the mergers and acquisitions activites, in absolute numbers.
4) Diversification activities: The results indicate decrease in sales growth and
increase in cash flow from operations. Since diversification activities is derived
from these parameters, the results indicate increase in the diversification
activities, in absolute numbers.
230
From the above, it is observed that there are greater and lesser, positive and
negative, differences in the individual analysis of each financial indicator of each of
the companies. This suggests that the divergence in measurement and accounting
disclosure result from the accounting norms affecting the economic avtivity-financial
indicators calculated based on IFRS and IGAAP. However, the greater or lesser
impact of each indicator in each company depends on the existence of elements that
register the assets variations that possess differences in the applicable norms and also
in their amounts.
The changes in key accounting ratios in absolute numbers are due to adoption
of IFRS concerning fair value accounting, lease accounting, income tax accounting,
accounting for finanical instruments, as well as rules concerning treatment of different
items in balance sheet, profit and loss statement and cash flow statement. These items
include goodwill, deferred taxes, investments, leases, revenue recognition, inventory
valuations, cost of goods sold and many other items.
The results of hypotheses testing are tabulated below. The results using t-value
at 5% significance for differences in means suggest that there is no statistically
significant difference in the mean of each of the economic activities at 5% level of
significance.
Table V.3.i: Hypotheses Testing with t-test Results
Economic activity
Mean
under
IFRS
Mean
under
IGAAP
t-value for
differnece
in means
1-tail
sign
Financial risk 9.4417 9.1400 0.057 -1.697
Investment activities 1.8845 1.8789 0.881 1.697
Mergers and acquisiton
activities
1.0696 1.1556 -0.2924 1.697
Diversification activities 1.7930 1.7655 0.321 1.697
231
In the results tabulated above, it is interesting to note that none of the
economic activities were statistically significant with IFRS-based ratios as compared
to IGAAP-based ratios. This suggests that even though divergence existed between
IFRS and IGAAP, this did not affect the economic activities of the companies in a
statistically significant way.
The results of this research support the findings of various studies as in
(a) Auer (1996) where the empirical results suggested no statistically significant
differences in the information between IFRS-based and Swiss GAAP-based
statements; (b) Tendeloo & Vanstralen (2005) where there was no significant
differences in earnings management between companies using adopted IFRS and
others using German GAAP. (c) Daske (2006) where risk for IFRS companies was
found to have increased. (d) Kabir et al. (2010) where there was no statistical support
for information based on IFRS and New Zealand GAAP.
The results of this research find support from various studies cited in the
literature review. The results are important because the potential investors and
external evaluators must appreciate the impact of IFRS adoption. Certain financial
ratios may go down impacting the image of the company after IFRS application. The
shareholders and other stakeholders of the company would be disappointed by the loss
of value due to different treatment of items under IFRS accounting. It would look like
loss of money but it is important to understand that IFRS accounting is only a way of
putting the same numbers in different manner that would bring out the workings and
activities of the company in greater detail. It is an instrument of evidence and has no
influence on economic results of any company. It only describes financial and
economic situation of an entity. So even though, the profitability becomes lower
under IFRS, the new standards would help create higher credibility and transparency
232
to all the users of financial statements.
Therefore, even though differences exist in absolute numbers between
indicators based on IFRS and IGAAP, there is no statistical evidence of economic
activities being improved/increased under IFRS. The users in India should understand
that IFRS is a method of treating numbers in different ways as compared to IGAAP.
This brings greater transparency to the international investors as well. As IFRS is
principles-based approach as compared to IGAAP being standards-based approach,
this would require future accountants and auditors to exercise professional judgment
more often and to a greater degree than before.
233
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION,
SUGGESTIONS,
AND SCOPE FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
234
VI.0 CONCLUSION
Data analysis and interpretation discussed in Chapter V bring out interesting
results related to the impact on economic activities of Indian companies due to
voluntary IFRS adoption. There were positive and negative differences, some greater,
some lesser, in each financial indicator of economic activity. These changes in
financial ratios existed in absolute numbers or magnitude, calculated based on IFRS
and IGAAP. This suggests that the adoption of stricter accounting rules under IFRS
could be the reasons for the changes observed in accounting figures and financial
ratios. However, there was no statistical evidence at 5% level of significance to prove
that any of the economic activities improved/increased under IFRS voluntary adoption
by Indian companies.
The research is important as it studies the impact of IFRS adoption on various
economic activities of Indian companies, especially when the adoption of IFRS is
still voluntary in India. Till date, there is only one study in India as sample country in
relation to banking industry (Firoz et al. 2011) but being descriptive in nature, the
study does not empirically test IFRS implications on the banking industry. The
current research, therefore, has great relevance to the Indian scenario.
This research is important because it empirically tests the impact of economic
activities due to IFRS voluntary adoption by Indian companies. In the first hypothesis,
the research provides no statistical evidence that corporate disclosure via IFRS
adoption had any improvement in financial risks when financial indicators for this
economic activity are tested in detail using both IFRS-based and IGAAP-based data.
Literature shows that IFRS adopters benefit with low cost of equity and hence
more investment opportunities, irrespective of countrys infrastructure. However, in
235
the second hypothesis, the research does not find any statistical support for increase in
investment activities after IFRS adoption by Indian companies.
The third hypothesis investigates IFRS impact on mergers and acquisitions
activities as the economic activity. Here also, similar to earlier two hypotheses, the
research finds no statistical improvement in mergers and acquisition after adoption of
IFRS voluntarily.
The fourth hypothesis studies the impact on diversification activities. The
literature supports the view that IFRS adoption helps to improve the information
environment and hence various economic activities of the companies. But, in the
fourth hypothesis too, the research finds no empirical evidence to support that
diversification activities increased after the adoption of IFRS voluntarily.
The research concludes that even though positive and negative differences
were observed in absolute numbers of each financial indicator of each economic
activity on the data calculated as per IFRS and IGAAP-basis, there was no statistical
significance of IFRS impacting any economic activity of Indian companies. This
research finds support in earlier works of Auer (1996), Tendeloo & Vanstralen
(2005), Daske (2006), Kabir et al. (2010) and many others. Despite these empirical
results, the disclosures under IFRS by Indian companies should meet the information
needs of international investors and should reduce the possible negative impacts in
international portfolios.
VI.1 CONTRIBUTIONS
The main contribution of this research is to provide comprehensive evidence
on the impact on economic activities by adoption of IFRS by Indian companies, even
though voluntary in nature. Given the well-developed literature from western
countries and not-so-well-developed literature from developing economies like India,
236
this thesis certainly helps in understanding the different perspectives of IFRS
adoption. It also helps to know why there is an increasing trend of accounting
standards harmonization via IFRS throughout the globe.
The present research contributes to the literature investigating the economic
impacts of IFRS adoption in two aspects. First, the research extends the literature by
showing how key financial ratios change under IFRS as compared to IGAAP. Second,
by examining the changes in financial statement items, the research shows that there
is no empirical statistical evidence for improvement in economic activities of Indian
companies. For this, the researcher creates financial matrix from published financial
statements prepared under IGAAP and IFRS. The research thus contributes to
literature on the consequences of IFRS adoption and provides evidence on the impact
of IFRS adoption on economic activities as traced from the items in financial
statements.
The research contributes to the accounting literature as it uses India as its
sample country, as studies on emerging countries, especially India are negligible. This
helps to examine whether economic activities improve with the adoption of IFRS,
even though voluntary in nature. The research also aims to contribute to policy
making. This research also attempts to inform to international accounting standard
setters and accounting regulators facing issues similar to those in India. Further, this
research also helps to understand why certain countries are impending adoption of
IFRS on mandatory basis. The research aims to understand whether the delay in IFRS
adoption is due to continued fear of market reaction to IFRS adoption or the belief of
negative impact of IFRS adoption. This would help policy makers in formulating
more appropriate rules and regulations towards IFRS harmonization.
237
The important contribution of this research is that it investigates the impact of
IFRS adoption on economic activities of Indian companies. The advantages that
Indian companies can experience with IFRS adoption are as under:
a) It would benefit the economy by increasing growth of international business.
b) It would encourage international investing and thereby lead to more foreign
capital inflows into the country.
c) With quality standards, consistently applied, investor understanding and
confidence will increase. With quality reporting, investors would not need to
compensate for a lack of understanding by demanding a risk premium. With
consistent application and the resulting comparability, investors and analysts
have an easier time knowing how to best allocate capital.
d) Having one financial language reduces preparation and audit costs.
e) The industry would be able to raise capital from foreign markets at lower cost if
it can create confidence in the minds of foreign investors that their financial
statements comply with globally accepted accounting standards. Lower cost of
capital leads to higher firm valuation.
f) It would provide professionals, opportunities to serve international clients.
g) It would increase their mobility to work in different parts of the world, either in
industry or practice.
h) IFRS adoption has positive informational consequences and improves investors
information environment.
238
VI.2 SUGGESTIONS
The IFRS regulations have significant implications not only for financial
statement preparers and users but also for entire financial reporting institutional
infrastructure (Jermakowicz, 2004) as well as the level of accounting harmonization
across the globe. The need towards conformity in international accounting results
from the globalization of business and the need for a common set of accounting
standards to facilitate international trade and investment (Mintz, 2010). However,
there are problems associated with the transition from locally accepted general
accounting practices to IFRS. These transition problems are as under:
a) During the transition to IFRS, companies face intense pressure on resources,
particularly if there is a period where two reporting systems are required, and the
increased disclosure requirements and information needs often overwhelm the
existing accounting information system. Moreover, the extent of the impact on
systems is often underestimated. So, a planned approach is required before
adoption of IFRS.
b) Unlike several other countries, the accounting framework in India will be deeply
affected by laws and regulations. Therefore, changes are required to various
regulatory requirements under The Companies Act, 1956, Income Tax Act, 1961,
SEBI, and RBI so that IFRS financial statements are accepted generally.
c) Increase in cost initially due to dual reporting requirement, which the entity might
have to meet till full convergence is achieved. This can be amortized and borne by
the corporates.
d) An entity would need to incur additional cost for modifying their information
technology systems and procedures to enable it to collate data necessary for
239
meeting the new disclosures and reporting requirements. This needs to be planned
and borne.
e) If IFRS has to be uniformly understood and consistently applied by all
stakeholders such as, employees, auditors, regulators and tax authorities, then it
has to be achieved through training.
f) Differences between IGAAP and IFRS may impact business decision/financial
performance of an entity. This impact needs to be assessed and phase-wise
implementation may be taken up.
g) Limited pool of trained resource and persons having expert knowledge on IFRS,
can be addressed through the adoption of IFRS course in social science related
subjects or disciplines from graduation, post graduation as well as professional
programmes.
h) The lack of auditors with IFRS know-how implies that the audit cost will be
higher, so more research-based training is required to bridge this gap.
It is essential to understand that the transition to IFRS is much more than a
technical accounting exercise. IFRS also have tax, internal reporting and system
implications. The change is profound, especially when seen in the broader context of
current financial reporting environment, including an ever-intensifying movement
towards fair value accounting (Tomaszewski & Showerman, 2010).
Padrtova & Vochozka (2011) mention accounting to be only an instrument of
recording. So the change of accounting method does not represent the change of real
economic situation of the company. The volume of fixed or current assets as well as
the volume of equity or debt remains physically the same as before the change of
method. The only difference is in the method of their evaluation and definition under
IFRS. This is not an attempt to depreciate the importance of accounting standards.
240
There is definitely high informative value of financial statements prepared under both
standards. The stakeholders of the business should not be misguided by the change in
ratios under the two sets of reporting.
The Indian corporates feel that the Indian accounting standards present the
economic situation in better light than IFRS, which is preferable image for company
management and present stakeholders. On the contrary, the potential international
investor or external evaluator would logically prefer the IFRS point of view as they
are more prudent in company evaluation especially in its profitability. Therefore, it is
of utmost importance to understand the intricacies of IFRS and the benefits that it
would add in the future.
The Indian national accounting rules and standards need to be changed/altered
in order to achieve the desired goal of convergence with IFRS and comparability of
financial statements. This task is being carried out by ICAI. The adoption of IFRS
will increase comparability of consolidated accounts as well as levels of transparency
for many companies, for example, through expanded segment disclosures, reporting
unfunded pension obligations and the recognition of derivatives on balance sheets at
fair value (Jermakowicz, 2004). It is therefore to be understood that, the
implementation of IFRS is not only about different accounting standards and policies,
it is the adoption of an entirely different system of performance measurement and
communication with the markets.
One of the key challenges in the adoption of IFRS is its use of fair values
which may bring increased volatility in the reported values of assets as well as
earnings. Especially banks and insurance companies experience significant
implementation problems in a movement towards fair value accounting. Management
will have an opportunity to reshape how company performance is communicated to,
241
and evaluated by the markets, and how the markets evaluate the company against its
competitors.
The cost aspect of the adoption of IFRS is significant. A training programme
for staff across the company which would let them adopt the new way in which a
business is operated is among the most important issues of the IFRS conversion
process. Other key challenges in the process of adopting IFRS include the complex
nature of some of the IASBs standards and the lack of adequate implementation
guidance. The lack of guidance creates risks for different local and national
interpretations of IFRS. It is believed that the change in accounting regime will have a
positive impact on the competitiveness and the growth of not only Indian companies
but also companies across the globe.
It is therefore suggested that the IFRS proponents should consider the
concurrent changes in the institutional environment with respect to enforcement,
governance or auditing, that applies to all firms.
VI.3 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The study in IFRS literature offers great scope for further research.
Considering the limitations of this study, one can study the impact of IFRS adoption
by Indian companies with a larger sample size. This is possible when more and more
companies adopt IFRS voluntarily or when the IFRS adoption becomes mandatory
post April 1, 2012 or thereafter. IFRS adoption can be further studied with Indian
companies in the context of various other concepts like corporate governance. IFRS
adoption would also have impact on fair value accounting, lease accounting, income
tax accounting. Impact of IFRS adoption can be tested with various other statistical
tools to validate the results.
242
The researcher has looked only at the positive aspects of IFRS adoption, that
is, whether the economic activities increased/improved after IFRS voluntary adoption.
Though the results did not statistically support the hypotheses, future research could
aim to look at whether there is negative or no impact on economic activities due to
IFRS voluntary adoption by Indian companies.
A comparison between mandatory adoption and voluntary adoption should be
of interest for future studies. Another extension of the study is to include firms from
other countries that have adopted IFRS for their financial statements. Such a cross-
country study would clearly be interesting and increase the sample substantially. This
would also help to intensify control problems because many institutional
arrangements could be accounted for explicitly (Leuz & Verrecchia, 2000) and also
help in understanding benefits of IFRS adoption (Kabir et al. 2010). Cross-country
studies would also help to identify and measure differences in events resulting from
diversity in accounting norms of these countries that subsequently affect economic-
financial indicators (Beuren et al. 2008).
Another aspect of future research could be to compare how managerial
incentives influence decisions to elect optional exemptions, differ across countries
that mandatorily adopt IFRS. It would also be interesting to investigate whether the
value-relevance of mandatory and optional equity adjustments is influenced by
country-specific factors. (Cormier et al. 2009).
Further research could benefit from examining the relationship between IFRS
adoption and other aspects of earnings quality such as timeliness, earnings
conservatism and value relevance (Tendeloo & Vanstraelen, 2005).
The researcher has examined IGAAP and IFRS difference and documented its
impacts. Differences do exist in magnitude even though no support was found
243
statistically. The methodology could have introduced measurement errors, but these
gaps can be filled by future research as and when data of Indian companies becomes
available under mandatory IFRS. It is also the researchers expectations that the
association between accounting numbers under IFRS and the impact on economic
activities and the market outcomes would happen over time. There is still time to
reach a comfort level with confidence and reliance on the information produced by
IFRS. This maturation process would offer future researchers numerous and exciting
opportunities in the years to come.
244
REFERENCES
Adukia, R. (2009). Encyclopedia of IFRS, (1
st
edition). Mumbai: Snow White
Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of
Financial Economics 17(2), 223-249.
Amir, E., Harris, T., & Venuti, E. (1993). A comparison of the value relevance of US
versus non USGAAP Accounting measures using form F-20 reconciliations,
Journal of Accounting Research Studies on International Accounting, 31
(Supplement), 230-264.
Armstrong, C., Barth, M., Jagolinzer, A., & Riedl, E. (2008). Market reaction to the
adoption of IFRS in Europe, Working Paper 09-032, Available at
http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-032.pdf.
Aubert, F., & Grudnitski, G. (2011). The impact and importance of mandatory adoption
of International Financial Reporting Standards in Europe, Journal of
International Financial Management and Accounting, 22(1), 1-26.
Auer, K. (1996). Capital market reactions to earnings announcements: Empirical
evidence on the difference in the information content of IAS-based earnings and
EC-Directives based earnings. The European Accounting Review 5(4), 587-623.
Barry, C., & Brown, S. (1985). Differential information and security market equilibrium,
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20(4), 407-422.
Barth, M., Landsman, W., & Lang, M. (2008). International accounting standards and
accounting quality, Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467-498.
245
Bartov, E., Goldberg, S., & Kim, M. (2005). Comparative value relevance among
German, US, and International Accounting Standards: A German stock market
perspective, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 20(2), 95-119.
Beckman, J., Brandes, C., & Eierle, B. (2007). German reporting practices: An analysis
of reconciliation from German Commercial Code to IFRS or USGAAP,
Advances in International Accounting, 20, 253-294.
Beuren, I., Hein, N., & Klann, R. (2008). Impact of the IFRS and USGAAP on
economic-financial indicators, Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(7), 632-649.
Botoson, C. (1997) Disclosure level and cost of equity capital, The Accounting Review,
72(3), 323-349.
Byard, D., Li, Y., & Lu, Y. (2011). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial
analysts information environment, Journal of Accounting Research, 49(1), 69-
96.
Chalmers, K., Clinch, G., & Godfrey, J. (2008). Adoption of International Financial
Reporting Standards: Impact on the value relevance of intangible assets,
Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 237-247.
Clarkson, P., Hanna, J., Richardson, G., & Thompson, R. (2011). The impact of IFRS
adoption on the value relevance of book value and earnings, Journal of
Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 7, 1-7.
Coopers & Lybrand. (1993). International Accounting Summaries: A guide for
interpretation and comparison, (2
nd
edition). New York: Wiley.
246
Cordeiro, R., Couto, G., & Silva, F. (2007), Measuring the impact of International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in firm reporting: The case of Portugal,
Working Paper Series, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=969972.
Cormier, D., Demaria, S., Lapointe-Antunes, P., & Teller, R. (2009). First-time adoption
of IFRS, managerial incentives and value-relevance: Some French evidence,
Journal of International Accounting Research, 8(2), 1-22.
Cuijpers, R., & Buijink, W. (2005). Voluntary adoption of non-local GAAP in the
European Union: A study of determinants and consequences, European
Accounting Review, 14(3), 487-524.
Daske, H. (2006). Economic benefits of adopting IFRS or USGAAP-Have the
expected cost of equity capital really decreased? Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting, 33(3 and 4), 329-373.
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the
world: Early evidence on the economic consequences, Journal of Accounting
Research, 46(5), 1085-1142.
Diamond, D., & Verrecchia, R. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital,
Journal of Finance, 46(4), 13251359.
Dick, W., & Piera, F. (2010). Financial Reporting under IFRS: A topic based
approached, (1
st
edition). New York: Wiley-John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ding, Y., Hope, O., Jeanjean, T., & Stolowy, H. (2005). Differences between domestic
accounting standards and IAS: Measurement, determinants and implications,
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26(1), 1-38.
247
Dumontier, P., & Raffounier, B. (1998). Why firms comply voluntarily with IAS: An
empirical analysis with Swiss data, Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting, 9(3), 216-245.
Epstein, B., & Jermakowicz, E. (2010-11). Interpretation and Application of
International Financial Reporting Standards for Indian Companies Delhi:
Deloitte Wiley India-Times Group Book.
Ferrer, R., Salle, D., & Ferrer, G. (2011). Liquidity and financial leverage ratios: Their
impact on compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS),
Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 15(Special Issue), 135-
150.
Firoz, M., Ansari, A., & Akhtar, K. (2011). IFRS-impact on Indian banking industry,
International Journal of Business and Management, 6(3), 277-283.
Gassen, J., & Sellhorn, T. (2006). Applying IFRS in Germany: Determinants and
consequences, Working Paper Series, Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=906802.
Goodwin, J., Ahmed, K., & Heaney, R. (2008). The effects of International Financial
Reporting Standards on the accounts and accounting quality of Australian firms:
A retrospective study, Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 4(2),
89-119.
Grevning, H. (2009). International Financial Reporting Standards: A Practical Guide,
(5
th
edition). Washington DC: World Bank.
248
Haina, S. (2008). Economic and informational consequences of voluntary adoption of
International Financial Reporting Standards, Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses. (UMI 3341122).
Hellman, N. (2011). Soft adoption and reporting incentives-A study of the impact of
IFRS on financial statements in Sweden, Journal of International Accounting
Research, 10(1), 61-83.
Holthausen, R. (2009). Accounting standards, financial reporting outcomes and
enforcement, Journal of Accounting Research, 47(2), 447-458.
Hung, M., & Subramanyan, K. (2007). Financial statement effects of adopting
International Accounting Standards: The case of Germany, Review of Accounting
Studies, 12(4), 623-657.
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (2002), International Accounting
Standards Committee Foundation, Annual Report 2002, London.
Jermakowicz, E. (2004). Effects of adoption of International Financial Reporting
Standards in Belgium-The evidence from BEL-20 companies, Accounting in
Europe, 1(1), 51-70.
Kabir, M., Laswad, F., & Islam, M. (2010). Impact of IFRS in New Zealand on accounts
and earnings quality, Australian Accounting Review, 55(20), 343-357.
Kalpesh, A., Ghosh, T., & Alkafaji, Y. (2010). Understanding IFRS Fundamentals, New
York: Wiley-John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
249
Kent, P., & Stewart, J. (2008). Corporate governance and disclosures on the transition to
International Financial Reporting Standards, Accounting & Finance, 48(4), 649-
671.
KPMG. (2009-10). KPMGs Practical Guide to International Financial Reporting
Standards, (6
th
edition). New York: Sweet & Maxwell-Thomson Reuters.
Lantto, A., & Sahlstrom, P. (2009). Impact of International Financial Reporting Standard
adoption on key financial ratios, Accounting and Finance, 49(2), 341-361.
Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure,
Journal of Accounting Research 38(Supplement), 91-124.
Levitt, A. (1998). The importance of high quality accounting standards, Accounting
Horizons, 12 (1), 7982.
Liu, C., & OFarrell, G. (2011). Comparability and convergence between IASB-IFRS
and regional-IFRS, International Journal of Business, Accounting and Finance,
5(1), 27-42.
Liu, C., Yao, L., Hu, N., & Liu, L. (2011). The impact of IFRS on accounting quality in
a regulated market: An empirical study of China, Journal of Accounting, Auditing
& Finance, 26(4), 659-676.
Major E., & Marques, A. (2009). IFRS introduction, corporate governance and firm
performance: Evidence from Portugal, Journal of Applied Management
Accounting Research, 7(2), 55-70.
250
McAnally, M., McGuire, S., & Weaver, C. (2010). Assessing the financial reporting
consequences of conversion of IFRS: The case of equity-based compensation,
Accounting Horizons, 24(4), 589-621.
Mintz, S. (2010). Implementation concerns about IFRS adoption in U.S., Journal of
International Business Education, 5, 97-116.
Morais, A., & Fialho, A. (2008). Do harmonised accounting standards lead to
harmonised accounting practices? An empirical study of IAS 39 Measurement
requirements in some European Union countries, Australian Accounting Review,
20(3), 224-236.
Nobes, C. (Ed.) (2000). GAAP: A survey of national accounting rules in 53 countries,
Arthur Anderson BDO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young International,
Grant Thornton, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Nobes, C. (2008). Accounting classification in the IFRS era, Australian Accounting
Review, 20(3), 191-198.
Padrtova, M., & Vochozka, M. (2011). The value statements according to IFRS in
comparison with the financial statements in accordance with Czech accounting
standards, Economics and Management, 16, 80-85.
Palmer, P. (2008). Disclosure of the impacts of adopting Australian equivalents of
International Financial Reporting Standards, Accounting and Finance, 48(5),
847-870.
Paul, A., & Burke, E. (2010). Preparing for international financial reporting standards,
Journal of Finance and Accountancy, 1-8.
251
Saini, A. (2011). A Complete Guide for converged Indian Accounting Standards and
IFRS, (6
th
edition). Mumbai: Snow White Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Singhal, S. & Tulsian, K. (2009). Practical Guide to International Financial Reporting
Standards, (1
st
edition). New Delhi: Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd.
Schipper, K. (2005). The introduction of International Accounting Standards in Europe:
Implications for international convergence, European Accounting Review, 14(1),
101-126.
Tendeloo, B., & Vanstralen, A. (2005). Earnings management under German GAAP
versus IFRS, European Accounting Review, 14(1), 155-180.
Tomaszewski, S., & Showerman, S. (2010). IFRS in United States: Challenges and
opportunities, Review of Business, 59-71.
Tweedie, D. (2006). Prepared statement of Sir David Tweedie, Chairman of the
International Accounting Standards Board before the Economic and Monetary
Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. Retrieved April 10, 2010 Web
site: http://www.iasplus.com/resource/0601tweedieeuspeech.pdf.
Watson, P. (2011). An Executive Guide to IFRS: Content, Costs and Benefits to Business,
New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Williams, J., Haka, S., Bettner, M., & Carcello, J. (2009). Financial & Management
Accounting: The basis for business decisions, (14
th
edition). Singapore: McGraw
Hill International Edition.
Wright, C., & Hobbs, S. (2010). Impact and implications of IFRS conversion or
convergence, Bank Accounting & Finance, 17-24.
252
Zhou, H., Xiong, Y., & Ganguli, G. (2009). Does the adoption of International Financial
Reporting Standards restrain earnings management? Evidence from an emerging
market, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 13 (Special
Issue), 43-56.
http://www.bourse.lu/Accueil.jsp, Last accessed on December 10, 2011.
www.capitaline.org, Last accessed on February 21, 2012.
www.dabur.com, Last accessed on February 20, 2012.
www.deloitte.com, Last accessed on January 30, 2012.
www.iasplus.com, Last accessed on February 1, 2012.
www.icai.com, Last accessed on April 10, 2011.
www.ifrs.com, Last accessed on April 9, 2011.
www.infosys.com, Last accessed on February 20, 2012.
www.kpmgindia/ifrs.com, Last accessed on April 12, 2011.
www.mca.gov.in, Last accessed on January 19, 2012.
www.ntbcl.com, Last accessed on February 20, 2012.
www.rolta.com, Last accessed on February 20, 2012.
www.sebi.gov.in Last accessed on February 15, 2012.
www.worldbank, Last accessed on February 13, 2012.