IFRS 9 – standardiuudistus Big Four -tilintarkastusyhteisöjen näkökulmasta – kommenttikirjeiden empiirinen analyysi

Since 2008, One of the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) objective has been to replace the old IAS 39 – Financial Instruments standard. IASB achieved this objective in July 2014 when they published the new IFRS 9 – Financial Instruments after many phases. In this study, the main purpose was to find out how the Big Four – audit entities have welcomed the different reforms which IFRS 9 brings to the treatment of financial instruments in the financial statements. Alongside with this, the study presents a short overview to the common attitude towards the new standard. The study proceeds so that the most siginificant reforms have been divided into three main categories and inside of these more precisely to single reforms. This study is based on the qualitative research method. The empirical data of the study consists of comment letters by the Big Four – entities, which have been sent to the IASB regarding Exposure Drafts (ED) of IFRS 9. In total IASB received 757 comment letters regarding to the specific EDs. In this study the population were restricted to 16 comment letters sent by the Big Four – entities. The data is available at IFRS Foundation’s website. According to the research results Big Four – entities think that the reforms which IFRS 9 brings are mainly welcome. In its entirety Big Four – entities consider IFRS 9 better than its predecessor IAS 39. There were differnces in opinions towards IFRS 9 and specific reforms among the Big Four - entities. According to the findings the best reforms were related to the efficiency demands of hedge accounting and to impairments and the valuation of credit losses. The least popular reforms were the reforms regarding the measurement of financial assets and liabilities; more specifically fair value option and the reforms concerning equity instruments were viewed as most challenging.

The effects of derivative use on equity fund performance

Investing in mutual funds has become more popular than ever and the amount of money invested in mutual funds registered in Finland has hit its all-time high. Mutual funds provide a relatively low-cost method for private investors to invest in stock market and achieve diversified portfolios. In finance there is always a tradeoff between risk and return, where higher expected returns can usually be achieved only by taking higher risks. Diversifying the portfolio gets rid some of the risk but systematic risk cannot be diversified away. These risks can be managed by hedging the investments with derivatives. The use of derivatives should improve the performance of the portfolios using them compared to the funds that don’t. However, previous studies have shown that the risk exposure and return performance of derivative users does not considerably differ from nonusers. The purpose of this study is to examine how the use of derivatives affects the performance of equity funds. The funds studied were 155 equity funds registered in Finland in 2013. Empirical research was done by studying the derivative use of the funds during a 6-year period between 2008–2013. The performance of the funds was studied quantitatively by using several different performance measures used in mutual fund industry; Sharpe Ratio, Treynor Ratio, Jensen's alpha, Sortino Ratio, M2 and Omega Ratio. The effect of derivative use on funds' performance was studied by using a dummy variable and comparing performance measures of derivative-users and nonusers. The differences in performance measures between the two groups were analyzed with statistical tests. The hypothesis was that funds' derivative use should improve their performance relative to the funds that don't use them. The results of this study are in line with previous studies that state that the use of derivatives does not improve mutual funds' performance. When performance was measured with Jensen's alpha, funds that did not use derivatives performed better than the ones that used them. When measured with other performance measures, the results didn’t differ between two groups.

Impact of Product-harm Crisis on Brand Equity: the Moderating Role of Corporate Social Performance

There is an increasing amount of product-harm crisis in the past few years; and the impact of a product-harm crisis becomes more and more influential due to the high increasing speed of globalization. And it is believed that the negative damages to a firm leading to a loss of the intangible assets is bigger than other costs such as the cost of the product recall. Brand equity is a very important and valuable intangible asset for a firm; and it is particularly vulnerable during the crisis. And CSP (CSP) is a hot concept associated with product-harm crisis and brand equity. The aim of this study is to understand how product-harm crisis influences by simultaneously involving CSP as a moderator in a consumer-based level. An experimental study was conducted through an online questionnaire among 198 students in Finland. The questionnaire mainly assessed the consumers’ attitudes towards CSP and brand before/after a fictional product-harm crisis. The results shows that the brand equity was negatively related to the product-harm crisis. And the extent level of crisis’s severity was positively related to the loss of the brand equity; whereas, acknowledged blame was more useful to compensate the loss of brand equity in the low-severity crisis. CSP acted as a moderator role which could compensate the loss of brand equity caused by the product-harm crisis. Managerial implications are also offered for crisis managers, brand managers, and CSR managers.