Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Why did preparers lobby to the IASB's pension a...

Electronic data

  • CK_08042015

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Accounting Forum. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Accounting Forum, 39, 4 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2015.09.002

    Accepted author manuscript, 711 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Why did preparers lobby to the IASB's pension accounting proposals?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>11/12/2015
<mark>Journal</mark>Accounting Forum
Issue number4
Volume39
Number of pages13
Pages (from-to)268-280
Publication statusPublished
Early online date12/10/15
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

We examine the characteristics of firms that lobbied on the 2010 Exposure Draft (ED) on pensions and find that signalling influences the decision to lobby. Further, we examine preparers position to two important proposals in the ED. We find that preparers are less likely to agree with the abolition of the corridor when they report unrecognized actuarial losses and that firms are more likely to oppose the replacement of the expected rate of return with the discount rate when the spread between these two rates is large. These results suggest that while signalling drives firm decisions to lobby, self-interest influences how firms lobby.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Accounting Forum. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Accounting Forum, 39, 4 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2015.09.002