The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), in their joint Financial Statement Presentation project, are reconsidering the basic format of financial statements. The Boards’ preliminary discussions related to this joint project indicate that they intend to modify the required financial statements to increase the proximity of performance‐related information for each reported period. We provide evidence related to this potential change by investigating the effects of financial statement information proximity on investors’ ability to learn the forecast‐relevant time series properties of reported cash flows and accruals. We also examine the role feedback plays in this relationship. Our experimental results suggest that nonprofessional investors are able to more quickly learn the relation between current period cash flows and accruals and future cash flow realizations when financial statement information is presented in a single statement rather than separated into two statements. In addition, we find that nonprofessional investors exhibit lower levels of absolute forecast errors and less forecast dispersion when financial statement information is unified into a single statement. Finally, we provide evidence that nonprofessional investors who receive extensive outcome feedback on a single page initially learn more quickly and later, after learning has leveled off, accurately forecast more consistently than do investors who receive extensive or limited feedback spread across two pages. Overall, our results provide evidence on the effectiveness of alternate financial statement presentation formats and the potential usefulness of receiving more extensive feedback.

One of the primary objectives of both adoption of IFRS and convergence between IFRS and U.S. GAAP is to increase financial statement comparability. Using a unique setting in Germany, we compare the effectiveness of these two approaches in achieving this desired outcome. Our empirical tests show that both adoption and convergence lead to an increase in comparability after the new enforcement regulation in 2005. However, difference‐in‐differences tests show that adoption does not lead to a significant incremental increase in comparability beyond convergence. The findings of this study should be of interest to regulators and standard setters as they assess alternative methods of aligning domestic standards with IFRS.

Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

We investigate the risk relevance of the standard deviation of three performance measures: net income, comprehensive income, and a constructed measure of full-fair-value income for a sample of 202 U.S. commercial banks from 1996 to 2004. We find that, for the average sample bank, the volatility of full-fair-value income is more than three times that of comprehensive income and more than five times that of net income. We find that the incremental volatility in full-fair-value income (beyond the volatility of net income and comprehensive income) is positively related to marketmodel beta, the standard deviation in stock returns, and long-term interest-rate beta. Further, we predict and find that the incremental volatility in full-fair-value income (1) negatively moderates the relation between abnormal earnings and banks' share prices and (2) positively affects the expected return implicit in bank share prices. Our findings suggest full-fair-value income volatility reflects elements of risk that are not captured by volatility in net income or comprehensive income, and relates more closely to capital-market pricing of that risk than either net-income volatility or comprehensiveincome volatility.