No description available.

No description available.

This paper explores the distinction between ‘equity’ and ‘liabilities’ in financial reporting in order to assess the merits of the current system of accounting for share-based payment transactions. It applies an interpretive methodology. Data were collected from a series of interviews with purposefully selected experts. Criticisms of and support for the current accounting regime are interpretively analysed and used to identify key themes or principles for evaluating the merits of three models proposed in the academic literature: the strict liability, narrow equity and ownership-settlement models. The study finds that the strict liability approach remains supported on the grounds that it provides decisionuseful information with which users are familiar. The other models are rejected as they are perceived as diminishing the usefulness of financial reporting. The study also identifies support for an obligation-centric approach, not fully developed in the literature, which may require detailed consideration by standard-setters. Overall, these findings will be useful for both practitioners and academics grappling with the difficulty of defining ‘equity’ and ‘liabilities’. In addition, the research makes a valuable contribution by addressing the need for interpretive-inspired financial reporting research. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this thesis is also the first South African study to investigate the appropriate classification criteria for instruments such as share-based payments and provide normative recommendations for the International Accounting Standards Board.

The purpose of this paper is to explore problems in current GAAP, including earnings management and illogical accounting practices. The paper then looks at proposed solutions to these problems, but shows how, from a creditor's perspective, these solutions fall short. My conclusion is that by creating two sets of GAAP, one for large publicly traded companies and one for smaller privately held companies, financial statements will be more representationally faithful for the creditors utilizing the financial statements.

This study examines empirically the relationship between a number of corporate attributes and levels of disclosure of information in annual reports of Malaysian public listed companies. The perceived importance of selected information items to two user groups; accountants and fmancial analysts is also examined using a structured questionnaire. Three unweighted disclosure indices (overall disclosure index, mandatory disclosure index and voluntary disclosure index) were applied to 54 corporate annual reports for three different years: 1974, 1984 and 1994. The results indicate that the level of disclosure has improved over the twenty-year period. The overall and mandatory disclosure scores show a substantial increase in 1984 and a moderate increase in 1994. However, only a marginal increase in disclosure level for voluntary disclosure items is noted for the same period. The association between the extent of disclosure and fifteen corporate attributes was examined using several multiple regression models. The results indicate that: (a) the variable total assets shows significant relationship with the three disclosure indices; (b) the variables liquidity ratio, scope of business operations, leverage, and type of management are significantly associated with some of the disclosure indices; (c) the variables number of shareholders, corporate image and fmancial year end show weak relationships with some of the disclosure indices; and (d) the other variables namely, total sales, market capitalisation, proportion of shares owned by outsiders, profit margin, parent company size and type of external auditor show no significant relationship with disclosure scores. Except for total assets, all variables in (b) and (c) above produce inconsistent results when employed under different regression models. The two user groups also demonstrate significant differences in perceptions on 31 (55%) out of 56 items of information. Overall, the financial analysts' group perceive a substantial number of items of information as more important than the accountants' group

This study focuses on users of online reporting rather than corporations. It examines the extent to which users find online reporting important as a source of corporate information, and whether they perceive it useful and easy to use in making their investment decisions. To achieve this, 2,229 online questionnaires were sent to professional and private investors asking them about their perceptions of online reporting. Based on 162 responses, an Online Reporting Acceptance Model (ORAM) was established to investigate variables that drive users' acceptance of online reporting, proxied by actual usage. Empirical results revealed that there is a room for improving the quality of online reporting in the UK as users are in favour of having more information and technological facilities available on corporate web sites. Furthermore, users find online reporting so useful in making their investment decision that it has become the most important source of corporate information. The Online Reporting Acceptance Model provided evidence that both usefulness and ease of use are major determinants of actual usage. The study also examines the impact of online reporting quality on analysts' behaviour. It proposes a thematic multidimensional online reporting index to measure the quality of online reporting by FTSE 350 listed firms. It is found that companies with higher online reporting quality are more likely to be followed by financial analysts. However, the study found no impact of the quality of online reporting on either error or dispersion of analysts' EPS forecasts and common uncertainty in their information environment. One possible explanation for the insignificant relationship between online reporting quality and properties of analysts' forecasts is herding behaviour by analysts. Consistent with prior studies, results provided evidence of herding behaviour by financial analysts in the UK.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.