No description available.

No description available.

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.

The emergence of new public management has been implicated in the changes that have occurred in the public sectors of western democracies. One outcome of these changes is that the public sector is expected to operate in a more commercial manner and that it be accountable not only for the money that it spends but also for the effectiveness with which it spends those funds. In response to these expectations, changes have occurred in both the accounting technologies and reporting mechanisms for the public sector. The Treasuries and Departments of Finance for each jurisdiction in Australia set accounting and financial reporting policy for the public sector. However, since the establishment of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board in 1983, the commonwealth and state governments have shown a willingness to adopt standards issued by the accounting profession. The adoption of three specific public sector accounting standards developed by the accounting profession in accordance with the conceptual framework, mean that a financial reporting model, based on the private sector 'decision-useful model', has been adopted in the Australian public sector. The 'decision-useful model' incorporates dependent users who are reliant on general purpose financial reports to make economic decisions. The decision to adopt this model for all public sector reporting entities, did not receive unanimous support. The complexities of the public sector formed the foundation for critics to question the applicability of this model to the public sector. In addition, critics argued that the model lacked empirical substantiation. The purpose of this research is to determine the applicability of the 'decision-useful model' to the public sector by empirically identifying users of public sector general purpose financial reports and their information requirements. Prior empirical research has been piecemeal in terms of both scope and research method. As a result, it has not been cumulative. This research will refine and extend the work of previous studies in two ways. First, in terms of scope, it will encompass all public sector entity types and will address all three elements of the 'decision-useful model' - the identity of users, what information they use and their purposes for requiring information. Second, this research will adopt a method which directly accesses users across public sector entity types. As a consequence, an assessment is able to be made of the applicability of the 'decision-useful model' in general and its application to specific public sector entity types. The findings of this research indicate that the 'decision-useful model' is misspecified in the public sector and that there are significant differences among public sector entity types in terms of users and their information requirements. First, the classification of users as normatively determined is not exhaustive and includes a large representation of non-dependant users. Second, all users preferred performance information and narrative information was preferred over general purpose financial reports. Further, users considered that general purpose financial information was more useful for accountability purposes than for decision making. These results should be useful to policymakers and accounting standard setters in the future prescription of the contents of financial reports for public sector entities.

No description available.