Accounting Standards

SOX after Ten Years: A Multidisciplinary Review ArXiv ID: ssrn-2379731 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract We review and assess research findings from 120 papers in accounting, finance, and law to evaluate the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We describe significan Keywords: Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporate disclosure, audit quality, regulatory compliance, accounting standards, Equities Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 3.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a literature review of existing research on SOX, discussing concepts and evidence without presenting new mathematical models or complex formulas. Its empirical work relies on synthesizing findings from other studies rather than conducting original backtests or data analysis. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br>SOX impact after 10 years"] --> B["Methodology:<br>Multidisciplinary Review"] B --> C["Data: 120 Papers<br>(Accounting, Finance, Law)"] C --> D["Process:<br>Review & Assess Findings"] D --> E{"Analysis<br>Focus Areas"} E --> F["Accounting<br>Disclosure Standards"] E --> G["Finance<br>Equities & Market"] E --> H["Law<br>Regulatory Compliance"] F & G & H --> I["Key Outcomes:<br>Audit Quality & SOX Impact"]

SOX after Ten Years: A Multidisciplinary Review ArXiv ID: ssrn-2343108 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract We review and assess research findings from 120 papers in accounting, finance, and law to evaluate the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We describe significan Keywords: Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporate disclosure, audit quality, regulatory compliance, accounting standards, Equities Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 3.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a literature review synthesizing findings from over 120 studies, focusing on descriptive analysis, policy implications, and identifying research gaps rather than presenting new mathematical models or complex statistical methodologies. It discusses cost-benefit analysis conceptually but lacks deep statistical modeling, code, or backtesting, resulting in low scores on both axes. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: Assess SOX Impact<br>after 10 Years"] --> B["Data Collection: 120 Papers<br>Finance, Accounting, Law"] B --> C["Multidisciplinary Review"] C --> D{"Evaluate SOX Impact"} D --> E["Audit Quality &<br>Regulatory Compliance"] D --> F["Corporate Disclosure &<br>Accounting Standards"] D --> G["Equities &<br>Market Effects"] E --> H["Key Findings: SOX Improved<br>Credibility & Transparency"] F --> H G --> H H --> I["Outcome: Comprehensive<br>Multidisciplinary Assessment"]

Global Accounting Convergence and the Potential Adoption of IFRS by the U.S. (Part I): Conceptual Underpinnings and Economic Analysis ArXiv ID: ssrn-1674723 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This article is Part I of a two-part series analyzing the economic and policy factors related to the potential adoption of IFRS by the United States. In this pa Keywords: IFRS Adoption, US GAAP Convergence, Accounting Standards, Regulatory Policy, Financial Reporting, Corporate Accounting / Policy ...

Global Accounting Convergence and the Potential Adoption of IFRS by the United States: An Analysis of Economic and Policy Factors ArXiv ID: ssrn-1357331 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Drawing on the academic literature in accounting, finance and economics, we analyze economic and policy factors related to the potential adoption of Internation Keywords: International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Accounting Standards, Regulatory Convergence, Financial Reporting, Policy Analysis, Corporate Accounting / Policy Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a conceptual policy analysis rooted in accounting and finance literature, with no advanced mathematical derivations or statistical models presented. It relies on theoretical arguments and literature review rather than data-driven backtests or empirical implementation. flowchart TD A["Research Goal<br>US IFRS Adoption Decision"] --> B["Methodology<br>Literature Review & Policy Analysis"] B --> C["Data & Inputs<br>Academic & Regulatory Sources"] C --> D["Computational Process<br>Comparative Assessment of Factors"] D --> E["Key Findings<br>Cost-Benefit Tradeoffs & Political Feasibility"] E --> F["Outcomes<br>Recommendations for US Regulators"]