arbiter
JournalsAccount

Insights From Academic Research on IFRS 9: A Review of the Literature

Zeting Zang et al.

Australian Accounting Review2026https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.70020article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 9 Financial Instruments replaced International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement , effective 1st January 2018. This study synthesises empirical research on IFRS 9, focused on the three phases of the standard‐setting process: classification and measurement, impairment and hedge accounting. The analysis is guided by accounting choice theory and international accounting literature. The impairment requirements received the most attention in the literature, followed by classification and measurement, and hedge accounting. The review of evidence indicates that firms generally apply the classification and measurement requirements consistent with IFRS 9. It also suggests that impairment losses under IFRS 9 are timelier, are less procyclical and are relevant to stock pricing and future bank risks. In line with accounting choice theory and international accounting literature, the evidence implies that management incentives and institutional contexts influence the effects of IFRS 9, particularly on impairment losses. Finally, the paper highlights gaps in the existing literature and suggests areas for future research.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.70020

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{zeting2026,
  title        = {{Insights From Academic Research on IFRS 9: A Review of the Literature}},
  author       = {Zeting Zang et al.},
  journal      = {Australian Accounting Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.70020},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Insights From Academic Research on IFRS 9: A Review of the Literature

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.