Search results

This study aims to examine the impact of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) mandate and differences in national institutional quality on the underpricing of Initial Public Offering (IPO) companies.

Multiple Difference-in-Differences (DiD) ordinary least squares estimations were conducted for 100 corporations listed on the Saudi Arabian stock market using country-level institutional quality data from 2005 to 2017.

IFRS requirements and improvements in institutional quality have a combined effect on minimizing IPO underpricing. The analysis of the combined impact of IFRS requirements and differences in transparency revealed that IPO vendors leave $5 on average for IPO investors to cash out post the IFRS mandate, compared to $29 previously. Thus, IFRS serves as a quality certification instrument that alleviates IPO investors’ ex ante uncertainties, even in nations with undeveloped institutions.

The findings may be beneficial to researchers and policymakers. The results suggest that institutional quality enhancements and obligatory IFRS implementation highlight IFRS’s synergistic influence on the IPO market. While European harmonization efforts drove the adoption of IFRS in Europe in 2005, Saudi Arabia’s adoption of IFRS is not being driven by such initiatives (Daske et al., 2008; Persakis and Iatridis 2017). In reality, when IFRS was officially imposed in Saudi Arabia in 2008, it, like many other emerging market nations, made considerable reforms to its formal institutions. However, research on the combined impact of IFRS and disparities in institutional quality in emerging IPO markets remains sparse. Emerging markets represent more than half of economies that use IFRS. Therefore, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to conduct an empirical investigation to identify this combined effect in emerging countries using the DiD analytical technique. Equity market legislators remain concerned regarding IPO underpricing, as it has a detrimental influence on economic growth (Bova and Pereira, 2012; Jamaani and Ahmed, 2021; Mehmood et al., 2021). Depending on the degree of information asymmetry in national stock markets, underpricing costs increase the cost of going public for entrepreneurs. Consequently, prospective private firms are discouraged from accessing equity financing through the stock markets. This is likely to impede private sector development plans, causing a negative effect on economic growth.

Emerging countries represent over 50% of the IFRS mandating economies. However, there is insufficient research on the combined effect of IFRS requirements and improvements in institutional quality in developing IPO markets. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first empirical attempt to identify this combined effect in one of the largest developing countries. The results may aid academics and policymakers in better understanding the interaction between these two variables.

This study aims to examine the short- and long-lived effects of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) mandate on the quality of reporting information of initial public offering (IPO) firms in emerging market economies.

The study used several difference-in-differences models for a sample comprising 102 Saudi Arabian IPO firms for 2003–2017.

It found that mandating the application of the IFRS had a significant short-lived but no long-lived effect on IPO firms’ information asymmetry. When information asymmetry was high such as in the primary market, the IFRS succeeded in alleviating the underpricing of IPO firms. Conversely, in the secondary market, with negligible information asymmetry, the IFRS was not beneficial for the long-term performance of companies in the IPO market.

This study is the first of its kind in the emerging market context and has important implications for IPO investors and analysts, IFRS-IPO researchers and policymakers in emerging economies. The results empirically confirmed that the IFRS mandate had solely a short-lived effect and no long-lasting impact, on the problem of asymmetric information in the IPO market. The effectiveness of the IFRS in producing quality financial reporting is contingent upon large-scale information asymmetry and vanishes when investors and analysts have abundant information about listed firms, even for emerging economies such as Saudi Arabia.

This paper uniquely aims to triangulate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, government financial intervention (GFI) policies and power distance (PD) culture on returns of equity indices during the COVID-19 epidemic in the world's equity markets.

The research employs panel data regression analysis using 1,937 observations from 19 developed and 42 developing countries. The data employed contain daily registered COVID-19 cases, global equity market index prices, financial intervention policies introduced by governments and Hofstede's cultural dimension measure of PD.

The authors find that investors certainly react negatively to the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported, that GFI policies indeed reinforce investors' expectations of policymakers' dedication to stabilize the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic and that equity investors in high PD cultures overreact to GFI news, resulting in more positive stock returns. The authors discover a difference between developed and developing countries in terms of the effect of GFI policies and PD on equity returns.

Results suggest that investors react negatively to the daily registered COVID-19 cases. The authors find that financial intervention policies introduced by governments reinforce investors' outlooks of policymakers' commitment to stabilize local stock markets during the coronavirus pandemic. The results confirm that equity market investors in PD cultures overreact to financial intervention news, thus resulting in more positive stock returns.

The paper provides three original contributions. First, it helps us to understand the single effect of the COVID-19 and financial intervention policies introduced by governments on returns of the global equity market. Second, it examines the possibility of a two-way joint effect between the COVID-19 and financial intervention policies introduced by governments and the COVID-19 and differences in countries characterized by a PD culture concerning stock market returns. Third, it investigates the possibility of a three-way interaction effect between the COVID-19 contagion, financial intervention policies introduced by governments and culture on returns of equity markets.

The authors' findings are valuable to researchers, investors and policymakers. Culture and finance scholars can now observe the role of Brown et al.'s (1988) uncertain-information hypothesis with reference to the effect of the COVID-19 and financial interventions policies introduced by governments on returns of equity markets. This is because the authors' findings underline that since investors' uncertainty declines with daily registered numbers of COVID-19 cases, the introduction of GFI policies function as a neutralizing device to re-establish investors' expectations to equilibrium. Consequently, stock market returns follow a random walk that is free from the negative effect of the COVID-19. The authors' work is likely to advise equity investors and portfolio managers about the extent to which major exogenous economic events such the outbreak of global diseases, financial interventions policies introduced by governments and differences in countries' PD culture can individually and jointly influence the return of the world's equity markets. Investors and portfolio managers can employ the authors' results as a guideline to adjust their investment strategy based on their investment decision strategy during global pandemics. Policymakers aiming to introduce financial intervention policies to stabilize their stock market returns during global pandemics can benefit from our results. They can observe the full effect of such policies during the current COVID-19, and subsequently be better prepared to choose the most effective form of financial intervention policies when the next pandemic strikes, hopefully never.

This study aims to examine the relationship between auditor industry specialization (IS) and audit fees.

The authors utilize 2,100 firm-year data of Jordanian companies from 2005 to 2018. Two conflicting theoretical approaches of IS were employed: the product differentiation approach, as assessed by market share (MS); and the shared efficiency approach, as evaluated by portfolio share (PS).

Results of the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression support product differentiation (shared efficiency) and show that employing experts' auditors exerts a very substantial and favorable direct impact on audit fees (negative).

This research contributes new empirical data to the auditing literature by examining if IS does influence Jordanian businesses' audit fees. The findings offer useful data for Jordanian officials to examine the auditing industry's difficulties while refining regulations and revising auditor pricing. Additionally, the results offer advice to Jordan's regulatory bodies who oversee the auditing industry. Arguably, results from Jordan may be extrapolated to other Middle Eastern nations.