The purpose of this paper is to investigate the economic consequences of accounting conservatism in Middle Eastern and North Africa (MENA) economies. In particular, motivated by the lack of empirical tests concerning economic effects of conservatism in MENA countries, the paper examines the impact of conditional conservatism on firms' cost of equity capital and the effect of two mechanisms of conservatism: bad news recognition and good news recognition on cost of equity. The firm-year measure of conditional conservatism is calculated using Khan and Watts' (2009) model and the cost of equity capital is computed based on Estrada's (2000) approach. As predicted, we find evidence of a negative relation between conditional conservatism and cost of equity capital using a sample of companies pertaining to MENA emerging markets. We also find that the two mechanisms of conservatism reduce the cost of equity capital. The finding of this paper can be used by standard-setters to review their opinion about the beneficial effect of conservatism. This study presents the first attempt in MENA countries to provide empirical evidence on the effect of conditional conservatism on the cost of equity capital.

Prior studies report negative or insignificant relations between conditional conservatism and the cost of equity capital, arguing that conservatism reduces information risk. Using accounting-based conditional conservatism proxies, however, we find a significantly positive association between conditional conservatism and the cost of equity. This positive relation operates via improving information precision about negative earnings shocks and generally inflating information asymmetry among investors, both of which increase the cost of equity. We further find that the cost of equity effect of conditional conservatism disappears in the period after the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), consistent with the notion that nationwide improvement of information precision about negative news and diminished information asymmetry are engendered by the SOX regulation. This study adds to researches on conditional conservatism, SOX, and the cost of equity, and also has policy implications.

Mention Enron or BCCI and a lack of financial regulation springs to mind. Consumer confidence is at a low ebb as consumers feel unprotected. This comparative survey of European and US consumer protection schemes offers detailed information on how much protection investors really have in these troubled times.

The bias implied by conservatism in accounting and its impact on information risk in equity markets is the subject of considerable debate. On one hand, opponents of conservatism believe that any kind of biased information is actually misinformation and thus increases uncertainty. Perhaps most prominent among opponents of conservatism is the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The FASB contends that accounting information should be neutralfree from bias; a bias in favor of reporting either good or bad news is inconsistent with representational faithfulness and neutrality. On the other hand, proponents of conservatism point to incentives of management to manipulate financial statements by exaggerating apparent good news and/or hiding apparent bad news. Proponents argue that the bias implied by conservatism is necessary to offset the asymmetric reporting incentives of the firms management, and in so doing, conservatism allegedly improves information quality and reduces information risk. Finally, results of at least one recent study do not favor either position, suggesting that conservatism has no effect on information quality in equity market. This study finds that the bias implied by conservatism (bias in favor of reporting bad news) increases information risk in equity markets and consequently the cost of equity capital. Findings further indicate that sufficiently aggressive bias also increases information risk. That is, the markets most aggressive firms, those reporting with a bias opposite that implied by conservatism, can reduce information risk by moving toward more neutral, unbiased reporting. Furthermore, the general effects of biased reporting (increased information risk) are consistent across all levels of information asymmetry among equity investors. These findings are interpreted as supporting the position of the FASB that biased accounting information increases information risk.

Accounting conservatism is often described as an equilibrium reaction used to moderate a decrease in value resulting from information asymmetry, uncertainty, or private information that occurs between investors and managers (LaFond and Watts, 2008). Although a qualitative characteristic of the FASB conceptual framework, standard setters have addressed concerns that accounting conservatism may lack neutrality and can lead to biased firm reporting that misrepresents economic conditions. Based on the theoretical framework of litigation proposed by Watts (2003), I address whether firms with higher thresholds of litigation risk are inclined to use higher levels of asymmetric timeliness as a choice in reducing information asymmetry. The motivation for this study is to extend the concept of accounting conservatism to a setting that investigates firms with egregious levels of litigation risk to determine if they exhibit higher levels of accounting conservatism. In terms of regulation, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to increase transparency and disclosure in financial reporting and represents a more transparent shift in the information environment. I examine whether the asymmetric timeliness of earnings and firm-specific measures of accounting conservatism are more pronounced for alleged fraud firms in the post-SOX period, when litigation risk is expected to increase. In terms of standard setting, I examine if goodwill impairment is higher for firms accused of alleged fraudulent activity and whether these firms utilizing goodwill impairment maintain a higher degree of accounting conservatism. I investigate whether accounting conservatism, as a disclosure mechanism, can mitigate an increase in the cost of equity capital, even under the auspices of alleged fraud. Additionally, this study addresses the issue of whether there are contagion effects of asymmetric timeliness for firms in similar industries as the alleged fraud firms. The results suggest that the threat of litigation for alleged fraud firms invokes a higher degree of asymmetric timeliness surrounding the alleged fraud manipulation date in the financial statements vis-á-vis a control sample and is driven by the accrual component of earnings. The degree of asymmetric timeliness of earnings remains higher in the post-SOX period for alleged fraud firms. However, the relation between firm-specific measures of accounting conservatism and the post-SOX period vary depending on the measure used. Goodwill impairment is higher for firms accused of alleged fraudulent activity and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings is greater for alleged fraud firms that utilize goodwill impairment. The relation between accounting conservatism and the cost of equity capital varies as to the measure used to construct the cost of equity capital. This suggests that firms are not able to influence the cost of equity capital through a more conservative disclosure policy. Also, there do not appear to be industry contagion effects. The findings lend support as to the role of accounting conservatism and why the FASB should continue to monitor its increasing effects. The results can provide support to investors, analysts, and academicians in adjusting for the effects of conservatism and to auditors in understanding how accounting conservatism could be used by firms and the multiple ways that it can be measured.

Julia Nasev examines the impact of conservative accounting numbers on valuation estimates and on real economic decisions such as cost stickiness.