The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Value Relevance Among German, U.S., and International Accounting Standards: A German Stock Market Perspective
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, German companies have reported consolidated financial statements under German GAAP, U.S. GAAP, or International Accounting Standards (IAS). Market observers, researchers, and regulators have argued that financial statements prepared under the shareholder (or investor) model, such as U.S. GAAP or IAS, provide better information than financial statements prepared under the stakeholder model (German GAAP). They further have argued that U.S. GAAP is more rigorously defined and, therefore, provides information superior to that under IAS. We investigate comparative value relevance, measured as the slope coefficient of the returns/earnings regression. Within our sample of German companies traded on German stock exchanges, the value relevance of U.S. GAAP- and IAS-based earnings is higher than that of German GAAP-based earnings. Our result holds only for profit observations, suggesting that reporting regime does not have an influence on the quality of earnings in the case of loss firms. However, we do not find a significant difference in value relevance between U.S. GAAP and IAS after controlling for self- selection. A major contribution of this research is that, unlike prior research, we measure stock returns for all sample firms in the German stock market only, and therefore are not reliant on the perhaps strong assumption underlying prior studies of similarity of pricing across markets domiciled in different countries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
The Economic Consequences of Increased Disclosure
Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2672910 · Cited by 2,370
Cited by
International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality
Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.688041 · Cited by 734
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartov, E., Goldberg, S. R., & Kim, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-119
- ISSN
- 0148-558X (ISSN-L)
- 2160-4061
- OpenAlex
- W3123676488
- Cited by
- 585
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 83.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative Value Relevance Among German, U.S., and International Accounting Standards: A German Stock Market Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0148558x0502000201
- The paper
- Bartov, E., Goldberg, S. R., & Kim, M. (2005). Comparative Value Relevance Among German, U.S., and International Accounting Standards: A German Stock Market Perspective. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558x0502000201
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.