Search results

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

This paper aims to examine the market risk disclosure practices of large Italian banks. The contribution provides insights on the way banks should provide information about market risk. The problem related to the asymmetric information between banks from one side, and investors and stakeholders on the other, represents a crucial issue that requires further considerations by scholars and regulators.

This contribution adopts a mixed methodological approach to analyse both qualitative and quantitative profiles of market risk disclosure in banking. This paper analyses the most important documents Italian banks are required to prepare for risk disclosure purposes, namely the management commentary, the Basel Pillar 3 disclosure report and the notes.

The results show that banks do not fully exploit the potentialities of management commentary and Pillar 3 disclosure report. Various areas of information overlapping between the different financial reports worsen the overall comprehensibility and relevance of bank risk reporting.

The reduction of the information overlapping, the careful choice of the location of the information and more appropriate use of the management commentary to provide qualitative information about market risk strategies represent crucial areas of improvement banks and regulators should take into account.

Providing an in-depth analysis of the market risk disclosure practices of a sample of large Italian banks, this paper detects the main drawbacks of their market risk reporting and provides useful recommendations to improve it.

The purpose of this paper is to review the archival literature on market reactions to qualified audit reports and to seek to identify the different approaches used in those studies. In addition, the paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, summarizes key findings, and provides suggestions for future research.

The paper reviews articles examining the relevance of qualified audit reports published between 1972 and 2010.

First, the review suggests that there are three main approaches used in the literature: the short‐window approach, the long‐window approach, and the indirect approach. Each approach has both strengths and significant weaknesses that should be acknowledged. Second, as a whole the empirical findings in this area are mixed. A more detailed analysis reveals that only the indirect approach has consistently found support for the relevance of qualified audit reports.

This paper shows that in future, researchers in this area should strive to identify the correct information release date, because it is the most critical step in conducting event studies. In addition to the event date identification, the effect of simultaneous information releases during the event period must be considered. Last, it is suggested that researchers include other stock market measures besides abnormal returns in their analysis, because measures like change in volatility, volume, bid‐ask spread, and systematic risk could provide information that abnormal returns do not offer.

This paper provides a review of the current state of knowledge on whether audit reports convey new information to the stock markets.