The purpose of this paper is to examine the possibility of South African companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) using adjusted earnings as a part of an…
The purpose of this paper is to examine the possibility of South African companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) using adjusted earnings as a part of an impression expectation management strategy focused on demonstrating how reported earnings measures meeting or beating analysts’ earnings forecasts.
A multiple response analysis approach is used. Earnings adjustments are coded according to a defined typology and assessed for their status as either valid or invalid. The number of occurrences of adjusted earnings measures over a five year period (2010-2014) meeting or beating analyst forecasts is calculated.
The use of adjusted earnings by JSE listed companies is a common occurrence. There is evidence to suggest that this is used part of an impression expectation management strategy. Most of the adjustments are invalid. When otherwise valid adjustments are used in a particular year, these are frequently repeated, and when adjusted earnings are reported, these normally exceed analysts’ forecasts.
The paper is based on a relatively small sample from a single jurisdiction and limited time period. Nevertheless, the findings point to the need to revisit how financial performance is measured and reported, evaluate additional regulation to protect investors and understand in more detail exactly how and why companies use adjusted earnings as an impression expectation management tool.
The paper adds to the limited body of research on performance reporting outside of the USA and Europe. It also examines the use of adjusted earnings in a unique setting where, in addition to IFRS numbers, companies are required to report a mandatory adjusted earnings figure (headline earnings).
Given its innovative characteristics and increasing popularity, the Bitcoin, and other virtual currencies, are expected to become mainstream, leading to the need for a…
Given its innovative characteristics and increasing popularity, the Bitcoin, and other virtual currencies, are expected to become mainstream, leading to the need for a generally accepted accounting treatment. Currently, however, there are no accounting standards which offer guidance on the recognition and measurement of these virtual currencies. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to determine a conceptual approach for accounting for the Bitcoin, grounded in the theories of neoliberalism and stewardship.
The research adopts an interpretive mixed-method approach. The relevant literature is analysed to identify key characteristics of the Bitcoin. These, as well as the elements of accounting policies inspired by neoliberalism and stewardship, form row and column headings in a correspondence matrix completed by 40 financial reporting experts. The correlations between rows and columns (developed using principal component analysis) are used to identify possible recognition and measurement requirements for the Bitcoin. Semi-structured interviews are used to complement the correspondence analysis.
The correspondence analysis and interviews reveal an emphasis on cost and fair value proposed by models grounded in stewardship and neoliberalism, respectively. The primary factor at work is the need to account for the underlying economics of the unit of account, something which is informed heavily by an organisation’s business model. Cost and fair value may be conceptual opposites, but in the eyes of respondents, these need to be used to achieve the single goal of communicating the economic rationale for holding the Bitcoin.
The study is based on a purposefully selected sample of experts and lacks the exploratory potential of purely qualitative research. Nevertheless, it makes novel use of a correspondence analysis to provide an initial frame of reference for developing an accounting policy for unusual transactions and balances.
The paper is the first to provide a normative perspective on the accounting for this poorly understood “currency”. It also adds to the limited body of interpretive accounting research which dispenses with traditional finance paradigms and positivist models to provide practical recommendations. Finally, the paper offers an innovative approach, using a correspondence analysis and detailed interviews, for developing an accounting policy for transactions not specifically within the scope of existing accounting standards.
Postgraduate (honours and masters in financial reporting).
Transnet is the utility company responsible for, inter alia, the operation, construction and management of South Africa's fuel pipeline infrastructure. The company is wholly owned by the South African Government and prepares its financial statements in compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). One of Transnet's capital projects involves the construction of an upgraded multi-fuel pipeline. The expected costs of construction ballooned from ZAR12.6 billion (approximately USD120 million) to ZAR24 billion (approximately USD240 million) over a five-year period. This has raised questions about the prudential management of the company's capital projects and the basis on which the government subsidises Transnet's capital costs. The significant increase in project costs also begs the question: how should the cost of the self-constructed pipeline be accounted for in Transnet's annual financial statements?
Expected learning outcomes
Describe and explain the qualitative characteristics of useful information in terms of the Conceptual Framework (2010) and summarise the framework's key principles. Evaluate these principles, drawing connections between them and the relevant academic theory (as per the prescribed readings), with specific reference to the accounting for self-constructed plant and equipment.
Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email firstname.lastname@example.org to request teaching notes.
CSS 1: Accounting and Finance
In his incisive analysis of academic tribalism, Stephen Balch (2004) argues that schools of thought can be catalysts or barriers to disciplinary inquiry, depending on the institutional setting. He cites physics, chemistry, and mathematics as fields in which competing schools of thought generally enhance the marketplace of ideas by increasing the scope and value of intellectual exchange (ibid., p. 2). Balch deems these disciplines “collegial” because, though “rivalries exist among hypotheses and investigators, there is general agreement on the means of resolving them and a strong sense of shared intellectual mission” which enable “internalized checks” to “keep things on the straight and narrow” (ibid., p. 4). By contrast, Balch describes the social sciences and humanities as “adversarial disciplines” in which paradigmatic rivalries “shade into enmities, bear heavily on methods of verification as well as the substance of disputes, involve judgments of value as well as of fact, often reveal an absence of shared mission, and produce results whose employment outside academe is very frequently polemical” (ibid., p. 4). In these contexts, schools become impediments to “serious academic discourse about the human condition” (ibid., p. 2) as the collegial ideal of a “free and open marketplace of ideas” (ibid., p. 1) gives way to balkanized disciplines “divided into enduring factions whose partisans frequently treat their opponents more as foes than colleagues” (ibid., p. 4).
This volume contains papers given at the third biennial Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies Conference on Austrian Economics. The conference was held…
This volume contains papers given at the third biennial Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies Conference on Austrian Economics. The conference was held at a beautiful waterfront facility of Simon Fraser University on October 15 and 16, 2010. In spite of all warnings to expect fog and rain in the Pacific Northwest, the weather was sunny and mild, as were the spirits of the conferees. Our topic title, “Austrian Views on Experts and Epistemic Monopolies,” was perhaps a bit misleading because some of the views represented were not “Austrian.” Indeed, the editorial mission of Advances in Austrian Economics has been to promote dialogue between the “Austrian” tradition of economics and other traditions both within in economics and beyond. Participants discussed the problem of experts from several Austrian and non-Austrian perspectives. While representing different points of view, the participants did tend toward the view that experts may pose a problem in one way or another, especially when they enjoy an epistemic monopoly.