Search results

This study aims to examine the effects of firms’ accounting disclosure policies on stock price synchronicity and stock crash risk, using a sample including 13 emerging markets. Furthermore, this research investigates how these relationships are affected by country-level investor protection and firm-level governance rankings.

This paper uses accounting disclosure measures constructed based on survey questions by Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia (2001, CLSA). The accounting disclosure measure is used to explain the two dependent variables, stock price synchronicity and stock crash risk. The stock price synchronicity measure is defined as the logistic transformation of R2 following Hutton et al. (2009) and Jin and Myers (2006). R2 is taken from the estimation of an extended market model. The stock crash risk variable is measured as the frequency difference between extremely negative and positive stock return residues following Jin and Myers (2006). These stock return residues are taken from the estimation of an extended market model. Because the CLSA firm-level disclosure data are from 2000, this paper matches other data taken from the same year, for consistency. The final sample includes 204 observations in 13 emerging countries.

This paper finds that firms’ stocks are less synchronized with the entire market and have less crash risk if firms have superior accounting disclosure policies. These results suggest that the cost to collect firm-specific information may be decreased for investors if firms are more transparent. Thus, these firms’ stocks have more firm-specific information content. These results also suggest that management is less likely to hide some negative information and release such negative information suddenly in the future if firms have higher levels of accounting disclosure. Thus, these firms’ stocks are less likely to crash. In addition, the influences of firms’ accounting disclosure policies on stock price synchronicity and crash risk are more significant for firms with superior country-level investor protection and firm-level governance rankings. These results imply that external investors place more value on accounting disclosure by well-governed firms because firms with superior governance standards are less likely to intentionally disclose misleading information. Thus, these firms’ stocks can incorporate more firm-specific information and have less crash risk.

The current study is the first to show that the effects of accounting disclosure on stock price synchronicity and crash risk are more pronounced for firms with superior country-level investor protection and firm-level governance standards. Thus, this research extends the literature by providing a comprehensive picture of the influences of accounting disclosure on stock markets. In addition, the existing literature (Chen et al., 2006; Durnev et al., 2004) shows that firms with lower stock price synchronicity are associated with higher investment efficiency because managers invest based on the information in stock prices. Obviously, higher stock crash risk is highly related to higher bankruptcy risk for firms. Thus, examining the effects of accounting disclosure on stock price synchronicity and stock crash risk is of obvious importance to policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine risk disclosures by UK companies within their annual reports. Tests are performed to measure the level of the readability of the risk disclosures and to assess whether directors are deliberately obscuring bad risk news.

The paper draws upon methodologies developed in prior empirical studies of annual report readability. Thus it uses the Flesch Reading Ease formula to measure the readability of the risk disclosures and coefficients of variation are used to measure obfuscation. A content analysis approach is adopted to identify risk disclosures.

The paper finds that the mean Flesch reading ease ratings for the sample companies are all below 50 indicating that the level of readability of the risk disclosures is difficult or very difficult and this supports prior research examining the readability of sample passages in annual reports. No evidence is found to suggest that directors are deliberately obfuscating or concealing bad risk news through their writing style.

The paper also finds that the Flesch reading ease ratings measure the readability, not the understandability, of disclosures and whilst actions can be taken to minimise problems associated with reliability when performing content analysis they cannot be wholly eliminated.

The paper shows that there have been calls for improved risk disclosures to enable stakeholders to better understand a company's risk position. Requiring directors to issue extra risk information will not, however, lead to enhanced risk communication unless the readability of the risk disclosures is also improved.

In this paper it is shown that there have been no prior studies that focus upon testing for readability and obfuscation in risk disclosures. It is important that transparent risk information is provided to the marketplace and therefore this study is valuable in its examination of the clarity of communication of published risk information.

This paper examines the impact of founder ownership concentration (FOC) on risk disclosures. It further investigates the moderating role of risk governance in the association between FOC and risk disclosures.

We use data from the top 200 Indian listed firms as our sample and rely on ordinary least squares (OLS) for our results. In addition, we use the propensity score matching, Heckman selection model and instrumental variable estimates for robustness checks.

We find that FOC decreases the risk disclosures. However, the effectiveness of risk management committee composition (risk governance) mitigates the negative influence of FOC on risk disclosures.

The paper is built on the agency theory. Based on the agency theory, the ownership concentration has two implications: first, it reduces the conflicts between managers and shareholders. Here, the managers act in favour of shareholders and therefore, brings more risk disclosers. Second, it invites conflicts between controlling and minority shareholders. The study is, therefore, interesting to see the cost and benefits of FOC on risk disclosures.

The study has practical implications for the regulatory bodies to encourage risk disclosures and benefit the outsiders of the firm. It also has implications for the companies to see the benefits of risk management committee as improved risk governance.

It contributes to the literature of risk disclosures and risk governance in emerging economies. It is the first study to investigate the role of risk governance in mitigating the adverse effects of founder’s ownership on risk disclosures in developing economies. It also contributes to the theory of agency cost and information asymmetry.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 and the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 9 enhanced the readability, and thus the quality and usefulness of risk disclosure information.

Readability analyses are performed on companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) from 2005 to 2021. The sample period includes the period when companies disclosed information according to IAS 39 (2005–2017) and IFRS 9 (2018–2021).

The results of the analyses show risk disclosures for JSE-listed companies to be complex and difficult to understand. Furthermore, risk disclosures have become longer and less readable with the introduction of amendments to IAS 39 and the introduction of IFRS 9.

This study uses readability measures as a proxy for the complexity and usefulness of risk disclosures. The amount of utility a user of financial statements derives could be dependent on other factors such as the quality of disclosure, individual user background and perceptions.

The results have valuable implications for the various stakeholders that make use of the information contained in financial statements. Stakeholders such as regulators and standard setters should carefully assess how accounting standards change to ensure that one of the key objectives of the IASB, namely, to provide information that is relevant, reliable and understandable, is met.

The results of this study contribute to the discourse on the usefulness of companies’ risk disclosures. Though, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to compare the readability of risk disclosures from an emerging market perspective, the results can be applied to other countries using IFRS to assess the readability of risk disclosures.

This study investigates how disclosure of the board of directors’ leadership and role in risk oversight (BODs oversight disclosure) influences investors’ judgments when information on risk exposures is disclosed. The theoretical lens through which we examine this issue involves negativity bias. Sixty-two stock market investors who engage in the evaluation and/or investment of stocks on a regular or professional basis participated in our study. Our results reveal that the addition of BODs oversight disclosure (positive information) does not carry significant weight on investor judgments (i.e., attractiveness and investment) when financial statement disclosures indicate a high level of operational and financial risk exposures (negative information). In contrast, under the condition of a low level of risk exposures, BODs oversight disclosure causes investors to assess higher risk in terms of worry, catastrophic potentials and unfamiliarity about risk information and, in turn, make less favorable investor judgments. Our findings add to the literature on negativity bias and contribute to the debate on the usefulness of disclosures about risk.

This study aims to empirically investigate the effect of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) convergence on corporate risk disclosure, with a particular emphasis on the quantity and coverage of risk information. The research also conducts economic benefit and cost analysis to investigate the economic implications that may arise from the transition to IFRS reporting.

A content analysis approach is used to measure two broader dimensions of risk disclosure, namely, risk disclosure quantity and risk topic coverage. Furthermore, using firm-fixed effect regression on a sample of 143 Indian-listed companies, this study investigates the variations in these risk disclosure dimensions before (2012–2016) and subsequent to (2017–2021) the convergence with IFRS.

The empirical results of this research demonstrate that IFRS convergence has led to a significant improvement in firms’ risk disclosure across several dimensions. Particularly, during the post-IFRS period, firms’ usage of risk-related words and sentences has considerably surged in MD&A, Notes and whole annual reports. In addition, upon IFRS convergence, firms’ risk descriptions have become more extensive and evenly distributed across risk topic categories. Moreover, the in-depth benefit and cost analysis revealed that firms reporting under IFRS benefit from decreased cost of equity capital, but they also incur a higher cost of audit fees.

This study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, this is the only study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to conduct a broader examination of the impact of mandatory IFRS convergence on corporate risk disclosure, with a major focus on quantity and coverage of risk information. Second, by conducting economic benefit and cost analysis, this study provides novel insights into the critical role of IFRS risk disclosures toward multiple economic outcomes.

The growing business complexity has caused many risks (e.g. operational, financial, reputational, cybersecurity, regulatory and compliance) that threaten companies' sustainability and have received attention from regulators, investors, and businesses. The authors present a model for assessing and reporting corporate risk by examining the indicators underlying corporate risk reporting.

A thorough review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with experts were conducted and the fuzzy Delphi technique was used to obtain consensus and screening of risks. The relationships between these risk indicators were recognized, weighted and prioritized by employing a hybrid Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Model (DEMATEL) method integrated with Analytic Network Process (ANP) (DEMATEL-ANP [DANP]) approach. Finally, using the Iranian setting of corporate risk reporting, a model was developed to calculate the risk-reporting scores.

The results indicate that risk disclosure quality is more important than risk disclosures' textual properties and quantity. According to the experts, reporting the key risks that the company faces, management's approach to dealing with these risks and quantifying their impact are more important than the other indicators. The results also show that risk reporting in Iran lacks quantitative and specific information, and most risk disclosures are sticky.

The data have been prepared and analyzed according to the unique Iranian reporting environment, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

The results of this research can be used by the regulators of the Stock Exchange Organizations (SEO) to evaluate corporate risk reports and rank companies. Results are also relevant to investors and policymakers to identify companies with poor risk disclosure and to take necessary measures to improve their reporting practices.

This paper contributes to the social and governance literature by presenting the importance of risk reporting in corporate disclosures.

The unique Iranian setting of corporate risk reporting furthers the understanding of risk reporting and thus provides education, policy, practice and research implications for other emerging economies like Iran. Many prior studies focus mainly on the quality of risk disclosure, and other aspects of corporate risk disclosure presented in the study have remained largely overlooked. The corporate risk reporting attributes identified in the study are relevant to the rise of non-financial risks, the textual and qualitative nature of risk reporting and textual risk disclosures.

The study investigates how firm-level governance (FL_G) affects the disclosure of voluntary risk information. Likewise, it explores the influence of FL_G on the informativeness of voluntary risk disclosure (VRD). Specifically, it examines how FL_G shapes the nexus between VRD and firm value.

It uses a sample of non-financial firms from the FTSE350 index listed on the London Stock Exchange between 2010 and 2018. The authors utilise an automated textual analysis technique to code the VRD in the annual reports of these firms. The firm value, adjusted for the industry median, is a proxy for investor response to VRD.

The results suggest that UK firms with significant board independence and larger audit committees disclose more risk information voluntarily. Nevertheless, firms with larger boards of directors and higher managerial ownership disseminate less voluntary risk information. Besides, VRD contains relevant information that enhances investors' valuation of UK firms. These results are more pronounced in firms with higher independent directors, lower managerial ownership and large audit committees.

The study rationalises the ongoing debate on the effect of FL_G on VRD. The findings are helpful to UK policy-setters in reconsidering the guidelines that regulate UK VRD and to the UK investors in considering risk disclosure in their price decisions and thus enhancing their corporate valuations.

It contributes to the risk reporting literature in the UK by presenting the first evidence on the effect of a comprehensive set of FL_G on VRD. Besides, it enriches the existing research by shedding light on the role of FL_G on the informativeness of discretionary risk information in the UK.

The aim of this study is to measure the risk disclosure level and to determine the relationship between ownership structure dimensions (institutional ownership, foreign ownership and family ownership) and corporate risk disclosure in Jordan.

This study used a sample of 94 Jordanian listed firms from the Amman Stock Exchange for the period from 2014 to 2017. This study measured risk disclosure using the number of risk-related sentences in the annual report, while random effects regression was used for hypotheses testing.

The results revealed that family ownership has a negative effect on risk disclosure practices, but institutional ownership, foreign ownership, firm size and leverage have no significant effect on the risk disclosure level.

The finding of this study is more likely be useful for many concerned parties, researchers, authorities, investors and financial analysts alike in understanding the current practices of the risk disclosure in Jordan, thus helping them in reconsidering and reviewing the accounting standards and improving the credibility and transparency of the financial reports in the Jordanian capital market.

This study offers novel evidence detailing the impact of ownership structure toward corporate risk disclosure, its implementation in emerging markets following the minimal amount of scholarly efforts on the topic. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first examination of the impact of ownership structure on corporate risk disclosure. Thus, this study has important implications for the decisions of executives, policymakers, shareholders and lenders, as it enables them to better understand the linkage between ownership structure on corporate risk disclosure.