This thesis seeks to examine a nascent topic pertinent to the future of investment reporting to participants in global capital markets: cryptocurrency reporting. In the age of investor freedom, low to zero brokerage fees, and digital ‘do-it-yourself’ investing, many investors and investing platforms have adopted the use of digital currencies. Since its inception in 2009, cryptocurrency has been surrounded by controversy, which impacted financial institutions holding it, companies using it in transactions, and investors trading it. With cryptocurrency’s inherent volatility and relatively little accounting guidance, these stakeholders have faced difficulty in making capital allocation decisions, properly recording their holdings and transactions, and learning how to engage in activities involving cryptocurrency. Moreover, cryptocurrency has caught the attention of market regulators due to these same factors. Our project directly addresses this topic and explores the accounting implications of using cryptocurrency based on currently available authoritative and non-authoritative guidance. We further examine the need for authoritative reporting guidance, the regulatory bodies responsible for prescribing reporting guidance, and potential recommendations for future accounting standards. We begin by defining cryptocurrency and distinguishing it from other digital assets in Section 2. In Section 3, we discuss the risks presented by digital currencies and their inherent volatility. In Section 4, we describe the ways in which businesses currently use, treat, and interact with cryptocurrency from both transactional and accounting perspectives. In Section 5, we review, consolidate, and present the current guidance on digital currencies from the Big 4 accounting firms. In Section 6, we investigate the cryptocurrency disclosures of five large public US companies through an analysis of their annual reports. In Section 7, we research the FASB and SEC and their standard-setting processes to determine which organization is best suited to provide guidance on cryptocurrency reporting. As part of this task, we consider the role of these two regulatory agencies, their views and attitudes toward cryptocurrencies, and their jurisdictions over this area of financial reporting. This examination involves regulatory and public policy research, to understand the standard-setting process within the applicable regulatory body. Finally, in Section 8, we directly engage in the standard-setting process by drafting a comment letter to the FASB which includes the results of our research, the necessity (or lack thereof) for authoritative reporting guidance, and key issues that the Board should consider.

This thesis seeks to examine a nascent topic pertinent to the future of investment reporting to participants in global capital markets: cryptocurrency reporting. In the age of investor freedom, low to zero brokerage fees, and digital ‘do-it-yourself’ investing, many investors and investing platforms have adopted the use of digital currencies. Since its inception in 2009, cryptocurrency has been surrounded by controversy, which impacted financial institutions holding it, companies using it in transactions, and investors trading it. With cryptocurrency’s inherent volatility and relatively little accounting guidance, these stakeholders have faced difficulty in making capital allocation decisions, properly recording their holdings and transactions, and learning how to engage in activities involving cryptocurrency. Moreover, cryptocurrency has caught the attention of market regulators due to these same factors. Our project directly addresses this topic and explores the accounting implications of using cryptocurrency based on currently available authoritative and non-authoritative guidance. We further examine the need for authoritative reporting guidance, the regulatory bodies responsible for prescribing reporting guidance, and potential recommendations for future accounting standards. We begin by defining cryptocurrency and distinguishing it from other digital assets in Section 2. In Section 3, we discuss the risks presented by digital currencies and their inherent volatility. In Section 4, we describe the ways in which businesses currently use, treat, and interact with cryptocurrency from both transactional and accounting perspectives. In Section 5, we review, consolidate, and present the current guidance on digital currencies from the Big 4 accounting firms. In Section 6, we investigate the cryptocurrency disclosures of five large public US companies through an analysis of their annual reports. In Section 7, we research the FASB and SEC and their standard-setting processes to determine which organization is best suited to provide guidance on cryptocurrency reporting. As part of this task, we consider the role of these two regulatory agencies, their views and attitudes toward cryptocurrencies, and their jurisdictions over this area of financial reporting. This examination involves regulatory and public policy research, to understand the standard-setting process within the applicable regulatory body. Finally, in Section 8, we directly engage in the standard-setting process by drafting a comment letter to the FASB which includes the results of our research, the necessity (or lack thereof) for authoritative reporting guidance, and key issues that the Board should consider.

This study examines how short selling threats affect firms’ non-generally accepted accounting principles (non-GAAP) reporting quality. From 2005 to 2007, the SEC implemented a Pilot Program under Regulation SHO, in which one-third of the Russell 3000 index stocks were randomly chosen as pilot stocks and exempted from short-sale price tests. As a result, short selling threats increased considerably for pilot stocks. Using difference-in-differences tests, I find that pilot firms respond to the increased short selling threats by reducing the use of low-quality non-GAAP exclusions, resulting in an improvement in the quality of overall non-GAAP exclusions. Further tests show that this effect of short selling threats is more pronounced for smaller firms, firms with lower institutional ownership, firms with lower analyst coverage, and firms with lower ratios of fundamental value to market value. These findings suggest short sellers play an important monitoring role in disciplining managers, as evidenced by the non-GAAP reporting choices of managers.

Recent research finds that there is significant variation in stock market participation by state and suggests that there might be state-specific factors that determine household stock market participation in the United States. Using household survey data, I examine how accounting quality of public companies at the state level affects households’ stock market participation decisions. I find that households residing in states where local public companies have better accounting quality are more likely to invest in stocks. Moreover, those households invest greater amounts of their wealth in the stock market. Cross-sectional tests find that the effect of accounting quality on stock market participation is more pronounced for less affluent and less educated households, consistent with prior findings that lacking familiarity with and trust in the stock market is an important factor deterring those types of households from stock investments. In state-level tests, I find that these household outcomes affect income inequality, which is less severe in states where high public-firm accounting quality spurs more stock market participation by poorer households. Conversely, in states where public firms have lower accounting quality, stock market participation among poorer households is less common, and a larger share of high equity returns accrues to richer households, exacerbating income inequality.

The goal of this study is to assess differences that still exist in International Financial Reporting Standards based financial statements between otherwise similar firms. We undertake this study because one primary goal of IFRS is to enhance comparability of financial statements world-wide, but it is unclear to what extent that has happened. First, we assess whether different countries adopt different versions of IFRS. We find, adopting countries fully adopt IFRS with only minor alterations to IFRS as promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board. We then test whether otherwise similar firms, but from different countries, interpret IFRS differently. IFRS is a principles-based set of accounting standards, and thus offers a wide array of options for companies to choose from in their reporting. The latitude of options in reporting inherently creates room for differences when firms interpret IFRS for their own financial statements. Building on prior studies (e.g., Ball (2016), Nobes (2011)), we find that historical country GAAP is influential, and in documented instances constrains comparability of otherwise similar firms located in different IFRS adopting countries. Based on our findings, we then offer suggestions to preparers and users of these financial statements, and the IASB, to address financial statement comparability issues (see appendix C).