Search results

The consensus‐based approach to setting accounting standards, which incorporates a formal consultation process, leads to questions about the lobbying process with regard to the nature of the argument, the characteristics of lobbying groups and the responsiveness of the standard setters. FRS 3, as the first standard initiated by the UK Accounting Standards Board (ASB), provides the context for considering these questions in relation to the nature of responses and respondents to the prior exposure draft, and the extent of comment integration, leading to a conclusion that the relative lack of change between the exposure draft and the standard is not explained by the pluralist concept of the standard‐setter in bilateral interactions with the independent respondents. It may, however, be rationalised in terms of a community of business interests collectively permitting the ASB to demonstrate its effectiveness through the apparent legitimisation afforded by an overt position of accommodating users as a special interest group and a market force. The formal consultation process served the purpose of a symbolic ritual to establish the acceptance and acceptability of a newly‐established regulatory agency.

This paper aims to analyse how the supreme audit institution (SAI) monitors related party transactions (RPTs) in the Brazilian public sector. It considers definitions and disclosure policies of RPTs by international accounting and auditing standards and their evolution since 1980.

Based on archival research on international standards and using an interpretive approach, the authors investigated definitions and disclosure policies. Using a topic model based on latent Dirichlet allocation, the authors performed a content analysis on over 59,000 SAI decisions to assess how the SAI monitors RPTs.

The SAI investigates nepotism (a kind of RPT) and conflicts of interest up to eight times more frequently than related parties. Brazilian laws prevent nepotism and conflicts of interest, but not RPTs in general. Indeed, Brazilian public-sector accounting standards have not converged towards IPSAS 20, and ISSAI 1550 does not adjust auditing procedures to suit the public sector.

The SAI follows a legalistic auditing approach, indicating a need for regulation of related public-sector parties to improve surveillance. In addition to Brazil, other code law countries might face similar circumstances.

Public-sector RPTs are an under-investigated field, calling for attention by academics and standard-setters. Text mining and latent Dirichlet allocation, while mature techniques, are underexplored in accounting and auditing studies. Additionally, the Python script created to analyse the audit reports is available at Mendeley Data and may be used to perform similar analyses with minor adaptations.

The lack of user response in written submissions on accounting standards has been noted in previous research. That lack of user response has limited empirical investigations with the result that lobbying by users has to be understood largely from theoretical literature in the political and social arena. Aims to add empirical data to the understanding of the user perspective, taking as a focus for the investigation the lobbying of the UK Accounting Standards Board in respect of the Operating and Financial Review. Four issues are chosen for analysis: usefulness to users, effectiveness of voluntary compliance, confidentiality and provision of forward‐looking information. Shows that the ASB’s responses on these four major issues are rational in terms of the relative intensity of lobbying. Using interview methods to obtain user responses shows that a different perception of lobbying intensity may be derived from a comparison of preparer and user responses, such that preparers’ views may have given too negative an impression to the ASB. The relative persuasive power of different arguments is shown to depend on how the comparison is undertaken. Uses the quantitative analysis of responses as a base from which to explore the potential for strategic lobbying to disguise self‐interested motivation and provides some insight on the lack of user response.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of board secretaries’ characteristics on annual report readability using an original method that evaluates the readability of Chinese characters.

The authors manually collect board secretaries’ characteristics from the China Securities Market and Accounting Research database and obtain annual reports from the China Information website. Ordinary least square regression is applied to evaluate the impact, and then robustness tests and additional regression analyses are conducted.

Board secretaries’ legal-professional expertise, international expertise and role duality improve annual report readability. However, their political connections are negatively associated with it. The effect of expertise (role duality) is more pronounced for firms with lower ex ante litigation risk (board secretaries with equity holdings). Furthermore, higher readability increases the compensation of board secretaries, whereas lower readability increases their turnover. Finally, annual report readability is positively related to firm performance.

The authors only investigate listed firms in China from 2007 to 2017 because of the difficulties of obtaining data and text mining.

The authors provide managerial insights for regulators aiming to establish an effective governance mechanism with Chinese characteristics. First, certain requirements for board secretaries’ expertise can improve annual report readability. Further, firms can consider appointing board members or senior executives as board secretaries to enhance disclosure quality.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to verify the effect of board secretaries’ characteristics on disclosure quality, especially annual report readability. Moreover, this study proposes a novel measure of annual report readability for Chinese texts.

Our aim is to investigate the quality of segment disclosures by companies in Brazil, Russia, India and China (known as the BRIC economies) that are expanding their operations internationally, and in so doing to assess the extent of convergence with globally recognized standards, that is, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

We examine the financial statements and narrative information provided by the largest BRIC companies. We carry out a content analysis and also apply multivariate regression techniques to evaluate if key firm-specific factors are associated with the number of operating and geographic segments disclosed.

Our results show that the extent of disclosure by the majority of BRIC companies is of a high standard taking into account both quantitative and narrative data. The disclosure of operating segments is commonly based on business lines though most companies also report additional geographic information. As expected, operating segment disclosures are positively associated with the extent of internationalization (percentage of foreign sales) and majority state ownership.

We have examined only the largest companies in each BRIC country and so there are limitations regarding the generalizability of our results. Future research could usefully examine the practices of a wider range of companies within each of the BRIC countries. This could also be extended to a study of disclosure behaviour in other emerging economies.

Our study provides new evidence concerning the quality of corporate financial reporting in the BRIC economies with special reference to a comparative international analysis of the segment disclosure practices of major BRIC companies expanding internationally.

This article examines compliance and disclosure interpretations issued by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in May 2016 that provide guidance to SEC-reporting companies on how they can use financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in a manner that complies with SEC rules governing the presentation of non-GAAP measures in SEC filings and other public communications.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the new interpretive guidance in the context of the increasing use of non-GAAP financial measures by SEC-reporting companies and the SEC’s concern that some companies have been using non-GAAP measures inappropriately to present a materially different picture of their operating performance than investors can discern from financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, a relatively permissive SEC attitude towards the use of non-GAAP measures in recent years has emboldened some companies to increase their reliance on non-GAAP measures in a manner the SEC views as inconsistent with its rules. The SEC staff’s new guidance signals a renewed focus by the SEC on compliance with its requirements concerning the nature of permissible non-GAAP measures and the ways in which companies should present those measures.

This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure requirement from experienced securities lawyers.

The following extract is taken from a speech by Jaime Caruana, Governor of the Bank of Spain, as Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, given to the Institute of International Finance in Dubai on 21st September, 2003.

This article examines the rule issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2015 that requires most SEC-reporting companies to disclose annually the ratio of the annual total compensation of their chief executive officer to the median of the annual total compensation of their employees other than the CEO.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the operation of the controversial pay ratio disclosure rule against the backdrop of concerns expressed by many commenters on the rule proposal, as well as by the two Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the rule, that the disclosure will not provide meaningful information to investors and will be excessively costly and burdensome for companies to produce.

The SEC fashioned the final pay ratio disclosure rule with a vaguely defined statutory purpose to guide it and a heavy volume of comments on its rule proposal that urged widely disparate approaches to implementation. In overhauling the proposed rule, the SEC sought to satisfy its mandate under the Dodd-Frank Act while providing companies with flexibility in implementing the new rule that it believes will reduce compliance costs and burdens.

This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure requirement from experienced securities lawyers.