Mark DeFond of the University of Southern California presented a paper here at UT-Austin last week. It is neat as it deals with a basic concept .. that is, comparability. HOW FUNDAMENTAL IS THAT? EXACTLY! VERY.

Title of paper: The Impact of Mandatory IFRS Adoption on Foreign Mutual Fund Ownership: The Role of Comparability.

He (and his coauthors) examine the issue in the case of mandatory adoption of IFRS, but the paper (in my opinion) is really about comparability. I hope that the standard setters around the world get access to this paper (I’m posting here just in case they do not know of it). Mark and coauthors couch the paper more as an IFRS paper, but it is as much about the concept of comparability.

It’s a neat paper, I hope you all check it out.

I’d like to throw a question at Mark (and hope he responds). I wonder why they have framed the paper as mostly an IFRS paper versus a paper about comparability? I wonder if researchers think there is something less sexy or interesting about fundamental concept papers versus papers on issues of the day, like IFRS. Quite honestly, I too have struggled with this issue, so I don’t have a hidden agenda/ answer / response here. I too struggle with this at times.