Despite the need for accurate oil and gas reserves estimates which honor disclosure requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a number of exploration and production companies have allegedly overstated and subsequently written down their reserves during the last 20 years. Reserves write-downs are of great interest to numerous groups involved in the reserves estimation process and outcome, including estimators, managers, investors, creditors, and regulators. Considering the magnitude and nature of some alleged overstatement cases, it appears that some of these parties may benefit from a better understanding of reserves reporting, the relative risk of overstatements, the regulatory environment and enforcement procedures, and identifying questionable reserves data. After discussing the context and importance of reserves and write-downs, there is a detailed examination of the SEC, including the agency's reserves reporting requirements, and their enforcement methods. A number of alleged overstatement and write-down "case studies" are presented, with details on the specific Federal Laws alleged to have been violated by corporations or individuals and then cited by the SEC and shareholder lawsuits. We also conclude that there may be greater write-down potential due to the updated SEC reserves reporting guidelines. A comprehensive series of systematic questions have been compiled and quick-look graphical techniques have been developed that may be used to gain insight into -and potentially raise questions about- an operator's reserves data.

This study examines the timeliness of write-downs taken by U.S. financial institutions during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The timeliness of write-downs is measured by benchmarking the quarterly accounting write-down schedule with the devaluation schedule implied by credit indices such as the ABX. The results show that accounting write-downs are less timely than the devaluations implied by credit indices. In a cross-sectional analysis of the determinants of the timeliness of write-downs, I document that higher corporate governance quality is positively related to timelier write-downs. Furthermore, I observe that regulatory investigations and litigation pressure are positively related to the timeliness of write-downs, whereas the write-downs by firms with more complex exposures, higher financial leverage, and tighter regulatory constraints are less timely. In addition, I control for numerous exposure-specific characteristics and document that less risky exposures, and exposures that were affected later during the financial crisis, were written down later. Regarding the consequences of timeliness, this study finds that the exposure to risky assets is reflected faster in stock returns for firms with timelier write-downs.

This study examines the timeliness of write-downs taken by U.S. financial institutions during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The timeliness of write-downs is measured by benchmarking the quarterly accounting write-down schedule with the devaluation schedule implied by credit indices such as the ABX. The results show that accounting write-downs are less timely than the devaluations implied by credit indices. In a cross-sectional analysis of the determinants of the timeliness of write-downs, I document that higher corporate governance quality is positively related to timelier write-downs. Furthermore, I observe that regulatory investigations and litigation pressure are positively related to the timeliness of write-downs, whereas the write-downs by firms with more complex exposures, higher financial leverage, and tighter regulatory constraints are less timely. In addition, I control for numerous exposure-specific characteristics and document that less risky exposures, and exposures that were affected later during the financial crisis, were written down later. Regarding the consequences of timeliness, this study finds that the exposure to risky assets is reflected faster in stock returns for firms with timelier write-downs.

Despite the need for accurate oil and gas reserves estimates which honor disclosure requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a number of exploration and production companies have allegedly overstated and subsequently written down their reserves during the last 20 years. Reserves write-downs are of great interest to numerous groups involved in the reserves estimation process and outcome, including estimators, managers, investors, creditors, and regulators. Considering the magnitude and nature of some alleged overstatement cases, it appears that some of these parties may benefit from a better understanding of reserves reporting, the relative risk of overstatements, the regulatory environment and enforcement procedures, and identifying questionable reserves data. After discussing the context and importance of reserves and write-downs, there is a detailed examination of the SEC, including the agency's reserves reporting requirements, and their enforcement methods. A number of alleged overstatement and write-down "case studies" are presented, with details on the specific Federal Laws alleged to have been violated by corporations or individuals and then cited by the SEC and shareholder lawsuits. We also conclude that there may be greater write-down potential due to the updated SEC reserves reporting guidelines. A comprehensive series of systematic questions have been compiled and quick-look graphical techniques have been developed that may be used to gain insight into -and potentially raise questions about- an operator's reserves data.

本研究的目的在於探討兩個問題：一、上市公司因應財務會計準則公報第三十五號公報的採用而宣告資產減損，市場的反應是正面的(positive)還是負面的(negative)？亦即，資產減損宣告對公司價值的影響為何？二、投資人對於資產減損宣告會過度反應(over-reaction)還是反應不足(under-reaction)？由於財務會計準則公報第三十五號公報的實施截至目前為止尚不足兩年，本研究對於本課題的研究著重在資產減損宣告和股價的關係突顯了這個課題的獨特性和重要性。本研究係採事件研究法以檢驗台灣上市公司採用財務會計準則公報第三十五號公報對於其股價的表現是否會造成影響。除了全數樣本的分析之外，亦將全數樣本依照減損公司的特性和減損資產的特性分成子樣本；或在事件研究法中傳統的市場模型當中加入利率因素或產業因素兩個控制變數並區分成對金融業和非金融業加以分析——目的在於探討這些分類或因素是不是造成資產減損宣告對股價反應的原因。實證結果發現：一、不論是採用哪一種子樣本的分類方式，市場對資產減損宣告的反應都是負向的；二、和利率因素相比，產業因素比較能解釋資產減損宣告前後的股價反應，且對於金融業或非金融業結論皆然；三、30天期的股價反應顯示，投資人對於資產減損宣告有過度反應的現象，因為在產業分類之下股價在12天至18天左右有迴轉(reversal)的現象。 / The purpose of this paper is to answer two questions: 1. Does the market react positively or negatively to asset write-down announcements? Or, what is the impact of asset impairment on the firm value? 2. Do investors over-react or under-react to asset write-down announcements? Given the recent enforcement of SFAS No.35 about asset write-down, this study supplements the importance of that pronouncement by demonstrating the relation between write-downs and security prices. This study employs the event study methodology to examine the impact of SFAS No.35 on the stock performance of those listed firms (i.e., whose stocks are listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange) that apply the regulation. Partitions methods based on write-down asset and write-down firm characteristics are adopted. Moreover, two other control variables—industry factor or interest rate factor—are added to the traditional market model for the financial industry and non-financial industries to see if these factors can also explain the market reaction around write-down announcements. The result shows that the market reacts negatively to asset written-down announcement whatever the partition method is adopted. And the industry return is proved to be the better factor that can explain the market reaction than the interest rate factor. The near-term stock performance in the (-30, 30) period shows that investors tend to over-react to write-down announcements, for the stock price signals a reversal after the announcement date.

År 2005 blev det obligatoriskt för noterade bolag inom EU att upprätta sin koncernredovisning enligt IFRS. Dessa internationella redovisningsstandarder har som mål att skapa jämförbara, transparenta, relevanta, tillförlitliga och begripliga finansiella rapporter vilka behövs för att fatta ekonomiska beslut. Användandet av IFRS ökar inte bara inom EU utan också länder utanför EU, så som Kanada, Ryssland och Japan. Vid införandet av IFRS gick många bolag från att redovisa avskrivning av goodwill, till att göra nedskrivningstest enligt IAS 36 p. 134 och skriva ned goodwill vid behov. Användningen av nedskrivning av goodwill istället för avskrivning kan ge en klarare bild av företagen för intressenter. Det existerar dock kritik mot hur IAS 36 p. 134 och dess föreskrivningar för nedskrivningar tillämpas i redovisningspraxis. Tidigare studier i ämnet harmonisering, har visat att arbetet med att skapa jämförbarhet i praxis inte alltid lyckas. Samtidigt är differentieringen mellan anglosaxiska och kontinentala redovisningssystem inte lika tydliga idag som de varit i det förflutna. Detta gör det intressant att undersöka harmoniseringen och jämförbarheten i redovisningspraxis i företag, med länder som inte är medlemmar i EU. Genom en komparativ studie mellan länderna Kanada, Ryssland och Japan undersöks till vilken grad de tillämpar IFRS och vilken skillnad som existerar mellan de olika länderna.Studien använder sig av ett abduktivt förhållningssätt och syftar till att göra en komparativ studie över hur 85 företag redovisar nedskrivning av goodwill i länderna Kanada, Japan och Ryssland. En kvalitativ ansats, med en komparativ design används i första hand eftersom denna studie syftar till att undersöka harmoniseringsprocessen och dess kontinuerliga utveckling.Resultatet i studien visar att företagen i de tre länderna skiljer sig åt i vilken utsträckning som de redovisar enligt IAS 36 p. 134, som behandlar nedskrivning av goodwill. De kanadensiska företagen följer i genomsnitt paragraferna under IAS 36 p. 134 bättre än de andra länderna, medan resultatet för de företag som tillämpar nedskrivning av goodwill visar att de japanska företagen följer underparagraferna bäst.Slutsatsen som kan dras är att beroende på ett lands redovisningstradition samt vilka redovisningsprocesser som länderna använder, så kommer företagen följa internationella redovisningsprinciper i olika utsträckning. / In 2005, it became mandatory for listed companies within the EU to prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with IFRS. These international accounting standards aim at creating comparable, transparent, relevant, reliable and comprehensible financial statements that are needed to make financial decisions. The use of IFRS increases not only within the EU but also in countries outside the EU, such as Canada, Russia and Japan. When introducing IFRS, many companies failed to write impairment tests under IAS 36, p. 134, and write down goodwill if necessary. The use of goodwill write-downs instead of depreciation can provide a clearer picture of the companies for stakeholders. However, there is criticism of how IAS 36, p. 134, and its provisions for impairment are applied in accounting practice.Earlier studies in the subject of harmonization have shown that the work of creating comparability in practice does not always succeed. At the same time, the differentiation between Anglo-Saxon and Continental accounting systems is not as clear today as they have been in the past. This makes it interesting to investigate the harmonization and comparability of accounting practices in companies, with non-EU countries. A comparative study between Canada, Russia and Japan examines the extent to which they apply IFRS and the difference that exists between the different countries.The study uses an abductive approach and aims to make a comparative study of how 85 companies report goodwill impairment in the countries of Canada, Japan and Russia. A qualitative approach, with a comparative design, is used primarily because this study aims at examining the harmonization process and its continuous development.The result of the study shows that companies in the three countries differ to what extent they report in accordance with IAS 36, p. 134, which deals with write-downs of goodwill. Canadian companies, on average, follow the paragraphs of IAS 36, paragraph 134, better than the other countries, while the results of the goodwill impairment show that the Japanese companies comply best with the under-paragraphs.The conclusion that can be drawn is that depending on the country's accounting tradition and the accounting processes used by the countries, companies will comply with international accounting principles to a varying degree.