Question

请英语高手翻译一下!!

Third, we repeat our analysis comparing quality of accounting amounts for firms applying IAS and US GAAP but limiting data to the most recent sample years. IAS underwent several changes during our sample period. Thus, it is possible that IAS improved sufficiently in recent years that accounting quality for firms applying IAS and US GAAP are similar, but this is obscured because our primary tests are based on sample data spanning nearly a decade. Inferences based on this analysis are the same as based on the full sample, suggesting that even for more recent years, accounting amounts for US firms are of higher quality than those for IAS firms.
Finally, we compare accounting quality for IAS firms and for cross-listed firms that reconcile accounting amounts to US GAAP on Form 20-F. From the SEC’s standpoint, this may be the more relevant comparison because their decision is whether to allow IAS for cross-listing as a substitute for requiring reconciliations on Form 20-F. Findings in Lang, Raedy, and Wilson (2005) suggest that reconciled US GAAP accounting amounts provided by cross-listed firms are of lower quality than for those of US firms. But, it is not clear how the quality of the reconciled amounts and IAS accounting amounts compares. By comparing firms applying IAS with firms applying domestic GAAP and reconciling to US GAAP on Form 20-F, we provide evidence on whether the reconciliation requirement provides investors with higher quality accounting amounts relative to IAS. Also, this comparison mitigates the potentially confounding effects of underlying economic factors affecting accounting quality in the US relative to non-US environments. However, in this comparison we are limited in our ability to match IAS and 20-F firms because both samples are relatively small. As a result, when conducting our tests we rely on control variables and fixed effects used in related prior research.
Our results suggest that IAS accounting amounts are of similar quality to the reconciled US GAAP amounts presented on Form 20-F. In particular, consistent with higher quality, IAS firms have higher variance of the change in net income, a higher ratio of the variances of the change in net income and change in cash flows, and a higher value relevance of earnings and equity book value in a price regression and of earnings in a bad news return regression. However, consistent with lower quality, IAS firms have a significantly more negative correlation between accruals and cash flows, and a significantly higher frequency of small positive net income. These results suggest that IAS accounting amounts provide investors with information comparable in quality to that provided in Form 20-F.

Answer 1

第三, 我们重申我们的比较分析会计信息质量的金额公司运用会计准则及美国公认会计原则,但不限制数据 最近几年样品. ias经历了几年的变化,在我们的样本内. 因此, 它可能是ias足够的改善,近年来会计信息质量,为企业采用国际会计原则与美国公认 很相似,不过这是模糊了,因为我们主要测试的是基于样本数据跨度近十年. 推论基于上述分析,基本上是相同的基础上,全部样本 暗示甚至更多,近年来, 数额占美国企业具有较高的质量比会计事务所. 最后, 我们把会计信息质量,为会计事务所和交叉上市公司会计调和相当于美国公认的形式 20-f. 从教委的立场来看, 这可能是更加有意义的比较,因为他们的决定是是否允许ias交叉上市,作为替代 要求核对表20-F. 结果郎raedy, 和威尔逊(2005)的研究表明,调和美国公认会计提供的数额交叉上市公司的质量低下比 这些美国公司. 不过,目前尚不清楚如何质量核对金额和会计核算的数额比较. 通过比较公司采用国际会计事务所与运用国内公认并调和以美国公认的20F表, 我们所提供的证据是否和解的要求,为投资者提供更高质量的会计数额相对国际会计准则. 另外, 这个比较舒缓潜在的混杂影响,对基本经济因素影响会计质量在美国相对于非美 环境. 不过, 在此,我们比较有限的能力,以配合国际会计准则和20f的公司,因为这两个样本的比较 小. 由于在进行测试我们依靠控制变量和固定影响,在使用前,相关的研究. 我们的结果显示会计核算金额同等质量的调和美国公认颁发数额表 20-f. 尤其是,具有较高的质量,会计事务所有较大的差异,改变纯收入 较高比例的差额的变化,人均纯收入和改变净现金流量, 以及价值较高的关联性收入和资产的账面价值在价格回归和收入在 坏消息回归回归. 但是,符合质量低下,会计事务所有一个较大幅度的负相关权责及现金流量, 和着较高的频率小的积极净收入. 这些结果表明会计核算数额为投资者提供的资料比较,在质量,在规定的20F表.