arbiter
JournalsAccount

Mandatory XBRL Adoption by U.S.-Listed Foreign Firms

Tony Kang et al.

Journal of Information Systems2026https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2025-031article
AJG 1ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopt a principles-based approach, giving managers greater discretion in interpreting accounting standards and preparing financial statements. Given this flexibility, this study examines how the 2017 IFRS XBRL reporting mandate affects SEC monitoring costs and capital market outcomes for IFRS filers. We find that IFRS filers are less likely to receive SEC comment letters, suggesting reduced SEC monitoring costs due to lower information acquisition and processing costs. Additionally, we document that stock liquidity and intraperiod timeliness improve post-XBRL adoption. However, these benefits diminish for firms using more custom XBRL tags. Despite SEC guidelines advising IFRS filers to refer to the U.S. GAAP taxonomy when appropriate IFRS tags are unavailable, we find that IFRS filers rarely do so. Collectively, our study highlights how IFRS filers respond to the IFRS XBRL reporting mandate and the implications for regulatory monitoring and capital market outcomes. JEL Classifications: G15; G38; M41; M48.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2025-031

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{tony2026,
  title        = {{Mandatory XBRL Adoption by U.S.-Listed Foreign Firms}},
  author       = {Tony Kang et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Information Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-2025-031},
}

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

Flag this paper

Mandatory XBRL Adoption by U.S.-Listed Foreign Firms

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.