Search results

Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) initial public offerings (IPOs) are an important source of early-stage capital and have also driven a substantial increase in main-board listed companies post-millennium. By contrast, Australian venture capital (VC) funding has remained largely dormant. The opposite has occurred in the US: IPOs have fallen by half, and VC funding has surged. The authors examine the reason for this divergence between ASX IPO and US VC systems that, with their supporting ecosystems, have many features in common and function similarly. The authors explore the potential factors that could explain the US VC surge vis-à-vis Australia's VC stagnation.

The authors’ analysis is predominantly qualitative. The authors describe the Australian listing process and its similar features and functions as for the prototypical VC. The authors also describe the developments in US VC driving its recent exceptional surge and highlight that such developments have not yet materialised on the Australian scene, where early-stage IPOs have served as a substitute.

The ASX's structure and ecosystem have been critical to its success in fostering early-stage main-board listings. While the US has succeeded in alternatively growing VC, there is an increasing concern that the latter has occurred partially because valuations are stretched, tax concessions for carried-interest capital gains are too high and corporate control benefits are becoming increasingly diluted. These developments could have important implications for Australia, where VC structures are currently being reviewed.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior study has attempted to bridge the broad differences in IPO and VC funding trends for early-stage companies in Australia and the USA.

Communication of risk management (RM) practices are a critical component of good corporate governance. Research, to date, has been of little benefit in informing regulators internationally. This paper seeks to contribute to the literature by investigating how listed Australian companies disclose RM information in annual report governance statements in accordance with the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) corporate governance framework.

To address this study’s research questions and related hypotheses, the authors examine the top 300 ASX-listed companies by market capitalisation at 30 June 2010. For these firms, the authors identify, code and categorise RM disclosures made in the annual according to the disclosure categories specified in ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (CGPR). The derived data are then examined using a comprehensive approach comprising thematic content analysis and regression analysis.

The results indicate widespread divergence in disclosure practices and low conformance with the Principle 7 of the ASX CGPR. This result suggests that companies are not disclosing all “material business risks” possibly due to ignorance at the board level, or due to the intentional withholding of sensitive information from financial statement users. The findings also show mixed results across the factors expected to influence disclosure behaviour. While the presence of a risk committee (RC) (in particular, a standalone RC) and technology committee (TC) are found to be associated with some improvement in disclosure levels, the authors do not find evidence that company risk measures (as proxied by equity beta and the market-to-book ratio) are significantly associated with greater levels of RM disclosure. Also, contrary to common findings in the disclosure literature, factors such as board independence and expertise, audit committee independence and the usage of a Big-4 auditor do not seem to impact the level of RM disclosure in the Australian context.

The study is limited by the sample and study period selection as the RM disclosures of only the largest (top 300) ASX firms are examined for the fiscal year 2010. Thus, the findings may not be generalisable to smaller firms or earlier/later years. Also, the findings may have limited applicability in other jurisdictions with different regulatory environments.

The study’s findings suggest that insufficient attention has been applied to RM disclosures by listed companies in Australia. These results suggest RM disclosures practices observed in the Australian setting may not be meeting the objectives of regulators and the needs of stakeholders.

The Australian setting provides an ideal environment to examine RM communication as the ASX has explicitly recommended RM disclosures areas in its principle-based governance rules since 2007 (Principle 7). This differs from other jurisdictions where such disclosure recommendations are typically not provided and provides us with a benchmark to examine the nature and quality of RM disclosures. Despite the recommendation, the authors reveal that low levels and poor RM communication are prevalent in the Australian setting and warrant further investigation.

This paper aims to examine the “quality” of narrative risk management disclosures (RMD) from a “quantity” and “richness” (width and depth) perspective, utilising a finer-grained approach. Evidence is then provided on the relationships between RMD quality and the corporate determinants driving that quality.

Within a multidimensional quality disclosure framework, annual report narrative RMD from the top 100 Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) listed companies precisely “matched” for the 2010 and 2012 years were examined using semantic content analysis. The relationship between the dimensions and sub-dimensions of RMD “quantity” and “richness”, and various corporate characteristics were explored using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis.

The results indicate that RMD are considerably lacking in quality, from the “quantity”, “width” and particularly the “depth” dimension and sub-dimensions for both years. Many companies provide “boiler plate” RMD over consecutive years and many do not comply with the intent of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations under the “if not, why not” regime (ASX CGC, 2010). Company size and cross-listing were found to be the primary determinants of higher quality RMD and, to a lesser extent, firm risk. Some evidence was found that “quality” RMD were less likely where companies are more highly leveraged and when their shareholders are more concentrated.

Although two coders independently coded the RMD and specific decision rules were followed, the subjectivity inherent in conducting semantic content analysis into the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the framework cannot be completely eliminated. However, by adopting a finer-grained approach, this study contributes to the global literature on the quality of RMD. Previous studies are extended by analysing and testing the individual dimensions and sub-dimensions of “quantity” and “richness” which provides new empirical evidence and a more comprehensive portrayal of RMD quality and a greater understanding why some companies are more likely to disclose higher quality RMD than others.

These results provide useful and predominantly new empirical evidence on the quality of RMD for practitioners, regulators and researchers. As many companies are not complying with the “intent” of the “if not, why not” approach, these results support the argument for mandated narrative RMD regulations at an international level.

The multidimensional framework of RMD “quantity” and “richness” provides a basis for examining not only how much is disclosed, but what is disclosed and how. In adopting a finer-grained approach, this study analyses and tests the individual dimensions and sub-dimensions of the framework. This provides a deeper understanding of the overall quality of RMD and the determinants driving RMD quality for the sample companies.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether biotechnology and health-care firms in Australia have poorer continuous disclosure (CD) practices as reflected in Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) queries relative to other firms.

Univariate tests and multivariate logit regressions are used to examine whether the frequency and nature of ASX queries and firms’ replies to price queries differ between biotechnology/health-care firms and the control firms.

Results suggest that biotechnology/health-care firms are more likely to receive volume queries and ASX Listing Rule 4.10 queries. They are also more likely to respond to price queries with new information relative to the control firms. However, biotechnology/health-care firms do not otherwise have statistically significantly different CD practice compared to the control firms, as reflected by the frequency and attributes of various types of ASX queries and by the way firms reply to price queries.

Evidence from this study can help evaluate the adequacy and enforcement of CD requirements and the need for further improvement. Investors can also use the evidence to better understand the information risks associated with investment in the biotechnology/health-care industry.

Prior research has not used multivariate methods to examine biotechnology/health-care firms’ CD practice in Australia or to examine accounting determinants of different types of ASX queries and firms’ responses to price queries.

This paper aims to provide a chronological review of changes in the institutional setting regulating Australian initial public offering (IPO) firms’ earnings forecasts over the period from 1994 to 2012. The changing forecasting environment covers both IPO firms’ prospectus earnings forecasts and post-listing updates to those forecasts.

This historical analysis reviews the changes in corporate regulation and enforcement, Australian Securities Exchange listing requirements and the outcomes of securities class actions (SCA) that affect IPO firms’ earnings forecasts.

A review of the institutional setting regulating Australian IPO firms’ earnings forecasts reveals two inter-temporal shifts in (increasing) litigation risk over 1994-2012 period which have arisen from more onerous regulations, stronger regulatory enforcement and a more active SCA market. The authors document the corporate responses to those shifts.

This is the first study to comprehensively document research of an inter-temporal litigation risk shift on IPO firms’ earnings forecasting behaviour. It therefore provides a formative base and a useful resource for researchers, practitioners and investigators (regulators, forensic accountants, etc.) when examining the impact of the changes on IPO firms’ forecasting behaviour following regulatory change and enforcement.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether audit committee characteristics influence the cost of equity capital.

Drawing on signalling theory, this study hypothesises that the presence of an AC with adequate characteristics serves as a market “signal” of the credibility of the effective monitoring process and hence affects the perception of capital providers on the cost of equity capital. The study uses a multiple regression analysis on data collected from a sample of top Australian listed firms.

The study finds that audit committee characteristics such as size, meeting frequency and independence are significantly and negatively associated with the cost of equity capital. However, there is no significant evidence that the financial qualifications of audit committee directors are associated with the cost of equity capital.

While there have been several studies examining the cost of equity capital, there is very limited research on the cost of capital in Australian firms. The study aims to fill this gap, in part, and contribute to the literature on corporate governance and signalling theory.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the current state of play for workplace diversity disclosures, specifically disability by investigating the recently revised Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations.

Case study methodology using documentary analysis techniques.

With gender diversity recommendations introduced in 2010 based on the business case perspective, the process of revising the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations provided an opportunity for the ASX to expand its diversity focus, with disability diversity specifically identified in the draft third edition. However, the key amendments were subsequently removed when the approved edition was released in 2014 with justification provided on the grounds that disability is a social issue, not a corporate governance issue. Through a widening of the corporate governance lens beyond the business case perspective, this paper calls for a re-imagining of corporate governance to incorporate an ethical viewpoint on diversity.

Disability diversity disclosure is merely the first step towards reform in helping to bring about deep change within organisations. Without both administrative reform and institutional reform, any future revisitation of the disability disclosure recommendations may become little more than a “tick the box” approach.

The paper is unique in reviewing the ASX Corporate Governance developmental processes towards workplace disability in its recently revised edition.

Drawing upon agency theory, this study analyses the influence of board characteristics on integrated reporting (IR) for the top 50 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX50). Focus is placed on IR at the aggregate level as well as its separate components, namely Future Opportunities and Risks (FOPRI), Governance and Strategy (GOVSTR), Performance (PERF), Overview and Business Model (OBM) and General Preparation and Presentation (GPP).

A checklist is devised based on the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council) framework to track companies' disclosures for the period from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2017. Regression analysis is used to investigate the determinants (board size, board independence, activity of the board, gender diversity, firm size, profitability and growth opportunities) of IR and its separate components.

The findings indicate a significant and positive effect of board independence on the aggregate IR index, FOPRI and GPP. A negative and significant association is found between activity of the board and both the aggregate IR index and its separate components, including GOVSTR, PERF and GPP. Additionally, the aggregate IR index is significantly related to firm size, profitability and growth opportunities.

The limited sample of 50 companies over three years is the main limitation of the study. The study suffers from an inherent limitation from the use of content analysis in assessing the level of IR. No checklist to measure the level of IR can be fully exhaustive. Furthermore, we focus on whether an item in the checklist is disclosed, using a dichotomous scale, thus ignoring the quality of information disclosed.

The study has several practical implications. From a managerial perspective, it shows that having more board meetings harms the level of IR. The results can guide regulators, such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), when drafting new regulations/guidelines/listing rules. If regulators aim for a higher level of integration in the reports, they know which “triggers to pull” to attain their target. Our results can guide regulators to choose the appropriate trigger among various alternatives. For instance, if a higher level of integrated reporting is desired, size instead of profitability should be chosen. Finally, ASX listed companies can use our checklist as a scorecard for their self-assessment.

This research is the first to investigate IR by devising a checklist based on IIRC (2013) along with an additional GPP component in the ASX context. Using separate models to examine each component of the aggregate IR index is also unique to this study. The study also brings to the fore the role of gender-diverse boards in promoting IR. It reiterates the debate about imposing a quota for better gender representation on boards.

The business case argument was used to underpin the inclusion of diversity disclosures within the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (2010). By adding a requirement for diversity disclosure, an increase in focus on diversity would be expected because of a heightened level of accountability. Whether this change in the Recommendations affected any change in the boardroom is questionable though. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of these disclosure requirements.

The authors draw on data obtained from a random sample of 120 ASX-listed company annual reports across two time periods: 2009 and 2012 (before and after the change in the Recommendations).

Although findings indicate that there has been some change, especially in the more visible companies (ASX200), many of the changes appear to be largely superficial with a continued focus on the business case perspective.

While the disclosure recommendations have the potential to be a driver in addressing gender inequity, the findings of this paper indicate that without deep change at the organisational level, requiring listed companies to disclose on gender diversity may have little impact, with the focus remaining on the business case and business as normal.

This paper contributes to the literature on gender diversity in the boardroom and the effect of disclosure. The empirical findings contribute to an understanding of the diversity Recommendations within the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, but in doing so, it calls for deeper organisational cultural change if real change is to take effect.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between risk management committees (RMCs) and risk management disclosure (RMD) quality. Specifically, the existence of stand-alone RMCs and a number of RMC characteristics, including RMC size, RMC independence, number of RMC meetings and RMC members’ human capital is investigated.

The sample comprises top 100 Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)-listed companies during the period between 2010 and 2012, when RMD began to be guided by detailed recommendations in Australia. Following the RMD framework used by Jia et al. (2016), RMD quality is measured based on its quantity, relevance, width and depth. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions were used to test the relationship between stand-alone RMC, RMC characteristics and RMD quality.

The results show that the existence of a stand-alone RMC, the human capital of RMC and RMC size are positively associated with RMD quality. In contrast, RMC independence and the number of RMC meetings are not found to have a significant association with RMD quality.

This study contributes to the current RMD literature by investigating whether a stand-alone RMC and different RMC characteristics are associated with RMD quality. The results of this study provide useful and new empirical evidence about the relationship between RMCs and RMD quality for researchers, companies, and regulators.