The purpose of this paper is to identify the circumstances that gave rise to an adverse audit opinion by a New Zealand (Christchurch) accounting firm, Hicks and Ainger, on…
The purpose of this paper is to identify the circumstances that gave rise to an adverse audit opinion by a New Zealand (Christchurch) accounting firm, Hicks and Ainger, on the annual financial report of the local firm, T.J. Edmonds Ltd, in 1976. In so doing, this study revealed not only previously undocumented issues surrounding major asset purchases but also the impact of key personalities before and after the adverse opinion decision.
The study is located within the Cultural Theory of History, to theorize the narratives within the wider contextual perspective. The issues surrounding the use of memory from such interviews are also considered. The key material offered in this study is sourced from a 2015 interview with the two key audit partners in this audit engagement.
The accounting standard on depreciation at that time, SSAP 3, had not been applied properly to the accounting treatment of four helicopters for wild deer operations, purchased a week before balance date. Neither the artificial suppression of profits by this purchase decision and accounting choice nor the fall in profits nor the adverse opinion, influenced share prices or shareholder perceptions long term.
The significance of this project is that it informs the appreciation of the importance of contextual understanding of a singular adverse audit opinion.
Social economics[l] is a small but growing school of thought in the United States. At first sight it appears as if “social economists” are a rather heterogeneous group…
Social economics[l] is a small but growing school of thought in the United States. At first sight it appears as if “social economists” are a rather heterogeneous group defying satisfactory description. Yet we believe that there is a unity of focus: a deep concern with human needs rather than just a description of human preferences being co‐ordinated. We define “needs” as “necessary” wants and immediately the question imposes itself: necessary for what? Our answer is human life with its higher or lower qualities. Social economics seeks not only to enable and maintain life, but also to “enlarge” it and fulfil it. As a direct result values are hierarchical, from the lower (survival) values to the highest (ethical, aesthetic) values. Such is implicit in the generally acknowledged human‐values‐orientation of the field, since values can be seen as need satisfiers.