• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.113-127
• /
• 2012

From the end of 1st quarter of 2012, Korean mandatory firms had started releasing financial reports conforming to the K-IFRS(Korean adopted International Financial Reporting Standards). Major characteristics of IFRS, such as 'principles based' features, consolidated reporting, 'fair value' measurement, increased pressure for non-financial disclosures have resulted in brief and various disclosure practices regarding the main body of each statements and vast amount of note description requirements. Meanwhile, a host of previous studies on IFRS disclosures have incorporated regulatory and/or 'compete information' perspectives, mainly focusing on suggesting further enforcement of strengthened requirements and providing guidelines for specific treatments. Thus, as an extension of prior findings and suggestions this study had explored to conduct an integrative approach embracing views of the reporting entities and the users of financial information. In spite of all the state-driven efforts for faithful representation and comparability of corporate financial reports, an overhaul of disclosure practices of fiscal year 2010 and 2011 had revealed numerous cases of insufficiency and discordance in terms of mandatory norms and market expectations. As to the causes of such shortcomings, this study identified several factors from the corporate side and the users of the information; some inherent aspects of IFRS, industry/corporate-specific context, expenditures related to internalizing IFRS system, reduced time frame for presentation. lack of clarity and details to meet the quality of information - understandability, comparability etc. - commonly requested by the user group. In order to improve current disclosure practices, dual approach had been suggested; Firstly, to encourage and facilitate implementation, (1) further segmentation and differentiation of mandates among companies, (2) redefining the scope and depth of note descriptions, (3) diversification and coordination of reporting periods, (4) providing support for equipping disclosure systems and granting incentives for best practices had been discussed. Secondly, as for the hard measures, (5) regularizing active involvement of corporate and user group delegations in the establishment and amendment process of K-IFRS (6) enforcing detailed and standardized disclosure on reporting entities had been recommended.

• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.51-68
• /
• 2016

In this paper, we aim to analyze the effect of accounting policy change subsequent to the adoption of K-IFRS in Korea, whereby the firms are required to recognize impairment losses on goodwill on a periodic basis rather than to amortize over a specific period. As a principle-based accounting standard, the K-IFRS expands the scope of fair value measurement with a view to enhance the relevance and timeliness of accounting information. In the same vein, intangibles with indefinite useful life, of which goodwill is an example, are subject to regulatory impairment tests at least once a year. Related literature on the impact of mandatory change in goodwill policy document that impairment recognition is more likely to be practiced opportunistically, mainly because managers have a greater discretion to conduct the tests under K-IFRS. However, existing literature examined the frequency and/or magnitude of the goodwill impairment before versus after the K-IFRS adoption, failing to notice the impairment symptoms at individual firm level. Borrowing the definition of impairment symptoms suggested by Ramanna and Watts(2012), this study performs a series of tests to determine whether the goodwill impairment recognition achieves the goal of communicating timelier information under the K-IFRS regime. Using 947 firm-year observations from domestic companies listed in KRX and KOSDAQ markets from 2008 to 2011, we document overall delays in recognizing impairment losses on goodwill after the adoption of K-IFRS relative to prior period, based on logistic and OLS regression analyses. The results are qualitatively similar in robustness tests, which use alternative proxy for goodwill impairment symptom. Afore-mentioned results indicate that managers are likely to take advantage of the increased discretion to recognize the impairment losses on goodwill rather than to provide timelier information on impairment, inconsistent with the goal of regulatory authority, which is in line with the improvement of timeliness and relevance of accounting information in conjunction with the full implementation of K-IFRS. This study contributes to the extant literature on goodwill impairment from a methodological viewpoint. We believe that the method employed in this paper potentially diminishes the bias inherent in researches relying on ex post impairment recognition, by conducting tests based on ex ante impairment symptoms, which allows direct examination of the timeliness changes between before and after K-IFRS adoption.

• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.105-129
• /
• 2020

This study uses corporate data from 2012 to 2018 when K-IFRS was applied in earnest to predict default risks. The data used in the analysis totaled 10,545 rows, consisting of 160 columns including 38 in the statement of financial position, 26 in the statement of comprehensive income, 11 in the statement of cash flows, and 76 in the index of financial ratios. Unlike most previous prior studies used the default event as the basis for learning about default risk, this study calculated default risk using the market capitalization and stock price volatility of each company based on the Merton model. Through this, it was able to solve the problem of data imbalance due to the scarcity of default events, which had been pointed out as the limitation of the existing methodology, and the problem of reflecting the difference in default risk that exists within ordinary companies. Because learning was conducted only by using corporate information available to unlisted companies, default risks of unlisted companies without stock price information can be appropriately derived. Through this, it can provide stable default risk assessment services to unlisted companies that are difficult to determine proper default risk with traditional credit rating models such as small and medium-sized companies and startups. Although there has been an active study of predicting corporate default risks using machine learning recently, model bias issues exist because most studies are making predictions based on a single model. Stable and reliable valuation methodology is required for the calculation of default risk, given that the entity's default risk information is very widely utilized in the market and the sensitivity to the difference in default risk is high. Also, Strict standards are also required for methods of calculation. The credit rating method stipulated by the Financial Services Commission in the Financial Investment Regulations calls for the preparation of evaluation methods, including verification of the adequacy of evaluation methods, in consideration of past statistical data and experiences on credit ratings and changes in future market conditions. This study allowed the reduction of individual models' bias by utilizing stacking ensemble techniques that synthesize various machine learning models. This allows us to capture complex nonlinear relationships between default risk and various corporate information and maximize the advantages of machine learning-based default risk prediction models that take less time to calculate. To calculate forecasts by sub model to be used as input data for the Stacking Ensemble model, training data were divided into seven pieces, and sub-models were trained in a divided set to produce forecasts. To compare the predictive power of the Stacking Ensemble model, Random Forest, MLP, and CNN models were trained with full training data, then the predictive power of each model was verified on the test set. The analysis showed that the Stacking Ensemble model exceeded the predictive power of the Random Forest model, which had the best performance on a single model. Next, to check for statistically significant differences between the Stacking Ensemble model and the forecasts for each individual model, the Pair between the Stacking Ensemble model and each individual model was constructed. Because the results of the Shapiro-wilk normality test also showed that all Pair did not follow normality, Using the nonparametric method wilcoxon rank sum test, we checked whether the two model forecasts that make up the Pair showed statistically significant differences. The analysis showed that the forecasts of the Staging Ensemble model showed statistically significant differences from those of the MLP model and CNN model. In addition, this study can provide a methodology that allows existing credit rating agencies to apply machine learning-based bankruptcy risk prediction methodologies, given that traditional credit rating models can also be reflected as sub-models to calculate the final default probability. Also, the Stacking Ensemble techniques proposed in this study can help design to meet the requirements of the Financial Investment Business Regulations through the combination of various sub-models. We hope that this research will be used as a resource to increase practical use by overcoming and improving the limitations of existing machine learning-based models.