Principles-based standards and the consequent role of professional judgment enhance the quality of Canadian financial reporting

The academic research provides preliminary confirmation of Ross Skinner’s (1995) hypothesis that Canada’s relatively principles-based GAAP yield higher accrual quality than the US’s relatively rules-based GAAP. These results stem from a comparison of the Dechow-Dichev (2002) measure of accrual quality for cross-listed Canadian firms reporting under both Canadian and US GAAP. However, the research documents lower accrual quality for Canadian firms reporting under US GAAP than for US firms, which are subject to stronger US oversight and greater litigation risk, reporting under US GAAP.

The latter results are consistent with stronger US oversight compensating for inferior accrual quality associated with rules-based GAAP. Consistent with the positive effect of Canada’s principles-based GAAP and the offsetting negative effect of Canada’s weaker oversight, the research found no overall difference in accrual quality between Canadian firms reporting under Canadian GAAP and US firms reporting under US GAAP.

Consistent with Skinner’s writings, the results imply that it is fallacious to attribute perceived deficiencies in Canadian financial reporting to the leeway allowed by principles-based GAAP without allowing for Canada’s oversight, which is relatively weak due largely to the absence of a national securities regulator. If anything, over the 1990-2002 sample period, principles-based standards and the consequent role of professional judgment enhance the quality of Canadian firms’ financial reporting.

To learn more, read the June 2004 article “Earnings Quality under Rules- vs. Principles-Based Accounting Standards: A Test of the Skinner Hypothesis” by Erin Webster and Daniel B. Thornton, Ph.D, FCA, (pictured here). Both are at Queen’s University School of Business in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.