Search results

Purpose – The audit expectation gap has been the subject of research in many countries and in different forms. However, such research of the nature and dimensions of the gap has been limited, if done at all, in the developing countries of West Africa. This study assesses its existence and investigates the factors that have been influencing it.

Design/methodology/approach – Survey responses from questionnaires administered to preparers and users of audited financial statements were analysed.

Findings – Financial statements users have significantly different perceptions about assurances provided by auditors’ reports, whereas the views of company accountants are quite close to those of auditors.

Originality/value – Although the validity of the results of this for international comparison may be limited by the number of financial statements users covered and the socio-cultural characteristics of the Ghanaian business environment, it should be recognised as one of the few to investigate the existence and nature of the expectation gap in the context of a developing country in the West African subregion. It thus adds the literature and points to the need for the adoption of multidisciplinary measures by the accounting profession and financial statements users with the view to eliminating or at the least minimising its persistence and escalation among the various relevant players.

An issue related to the strategic choice of organizational form for affiliated businesses is how the financial information of the affiliate will be reported. A question arises as to whether alternative methods of reporting influence user decisions. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether alternative consolidation accounting methods affected the financial decisions of users in selected countries. An experiment was conducted with student subjects in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Alternative consolidation techniques and country were the independent variables. Results indicated user responses were affected by the consolidation method. Country effects were also noted.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate if there is an expectation gap among accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Complex reporting standards and current market expectations have the potential to create differences between what third-party users consider to be the responsibilities of the auditor and what auditors believe to be their responsibilities in auditing fair value estimates.

This study surveys the perceptions of accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements and the degree to which an expectation gap exists in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Survey respondents chose from a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

This paper proposes two hypotheses. The results for all nine survey items have provided significant evidence that there is a difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between users of financial statements and accounting practitioners (H1). Additionally, the findings for all survey items present support there is a significant difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between accounting academics and users of financial statements (H2).

A limitation of the current study, as an inherent attribute with survey research, is non-response bias. The only way to evaluate this was to test late responses to earlier results. There were no significant results in these analyses. According to Fink (2003), if there are no significant differences in this indicator the likelihood of non-response bias is extremely low. Hence, this limitation did not have serious implications on the current study.

The implications of this study affect the accounting academic community as they prepare students in response to the evolving market expectations (Pan and Perera, 2012). Previous research has pointed toward the sluggish reaction for change in the accounting curriculum relative to external demands (Harvey, 2004; Pan and Perera, 2012). The results of this study also have resonating effects for accounting practitioners. The marketplace expects accountants to be “knowledge professionals” (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). Regulators continue to ask auditors to find more fraud and understand financial valuation (Pan and Perera, 2012).

Contemporary accounting practice is moving beyond the scope of quantitative recording of historical financial information. Ignoring integral market transformations could result in lower quality audits with corresponding increased litigation against auditors for negligence (Pearson, 2011).

This study is important for several reasons. First, users of financial statements have expressed the necessity for auditors to acquire financial valuation skills (Christensen et al. (2012). Therefore, the evidence obtained from users of financial statements in this research will be critical guidance to reconcile expectations. Second, accounting educators have not provided a significant response to teaching fair value concepts in the university curriculum (Carlino, 2012; Hanson, 2013). This research presents a clarion call to accounting educators to align university curriculum toward market expectations (Christensen et al., 2012). Third, the practitioner community has also been criticized for audit deficiencies in fair value. It is critical to understand if additional training in financial valuation is necessary to improve the fair value judgments of practitioners and meet stakeholder’s expectations. Accordingly, the study provides a contribution to practice. Finally, this paper answers the call by Christensen et al. (2012) for future research on the topic of fair value: to “mirror the categories of recommendations of regulators and standard setters.”

The paper analyses the concept of ‘user needs’, which has been widely adopted by official bodies as the basis of a conceptual framework for financial reporting, including the ASB in the UK, following the lead of the FASB in the US. The user needs approach is essentially deductive: if users of the financial statements are identified, together with the decisions such users want to make with the information such statements contain, then the required information can be specified in the appropriate form. The paper attempts to follow this logic, to test its viability, making reference to the literature and the conceptual framework statements of FASB and the ASB. The paper concludes that the approach throws up such serious problems that no clear conclusions can be drawn from it. FASB and the ASB do not explicitly face these problems, and effectively abandon the user needs criterion. User needs can only serve a rhetorical function within conceptual framework documents.

Part II contrasts the views of materiality in the Conceptual Frameworks of the IASB, FASB, IPSAS, and other framework such as the Integrated Reporting. In particular, it analyzes at what level and how differently that concept interacts with the qualitative characteristics of financial information in each of those frameworks. It looks at its pervasiveness and entity specificity, the interlock with the concept of relevance, reliability and faithful representation, completeness, understandability, neutrality, and drills down to the link to recognition.

This part then compares the definitions of materiality in different standards and contexts, to then draw a taxonomy of materiality and its attributes, such as the subject matter, thecontext of assessment, the addressees, the assessor, and the materiality test. A large part of the analysis involves the comparison between legal definitions of materiality and characterizations in the accounting, financial, and larger management contexts.

Differential reporting was introduced in South Africa with the enactment of the Corporate Laws Amendment Act 24 2006. Since it was urgent that the standard‐setters provide limited interest companies with interim guidance as to the preparation and presentation of financial statements, South Africa adopted the International Accounting Standards Board’s International Financial Reporting Standard for Small and Mediumsized Entities in its draft form. This study looks at the development of accounting standards for small and mediumsized entities in South Africa. It also examines analyses of prior research on differential reporting and the due process of the International Accounting Standards Board on this topic, as well as the due process of the South African standard‐setter. The paper provides a contextual analysis of the unique reporting environment of South African companies and concludes that adopting the draft IFRS for SMEs may have been the best option for the standard‐setting body in providing relief for limited interest companies from the cost of complying with the International Financial Reporting Standards while still enabling auditors to express an opinion on the financial statements.

We review and analyze the accounting literature that examines the effects of accounting conservatism on financial statements and financial statement users. We begin by analyzing how conservatism affects the reported numbers on the financial statements. These studies primarily evaluate how conservatism affects earnings quality, including earnings persistence and the presence of earnings management. Next, we assess the effect of accounting conservatism on the users of the financial statements. We identify three primary users of the financial statements: (1) equity market users (2) debt market users and (3) corporate governance users. Within each of these categories, we analyze the findings of prior research and explore unanswered research questions. By analyzing the effects of accounting conservatism from a diverse range of research topics, we inform the discussion on the costs and benefits of accounting conservatism.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has justified the simplification of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in several ways, but no effective justification for this simplification has been made based on the information needs of users. This study aims to provide empirical evidence of the decision usefulness of IFRS for SMEs from a prominent user group of SME financial statements – the banks.

This study uses a mixed-method approach. First, a survey was conducted on commercial bank lending officers to assess the usefulness of different disclosure items included in the SME financial statements. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with commercial bank lending officers to gain an in-depth insight into the appropriateness and economic consequences of the requirements of IFRS for SMEs on their lending decisions.

The findings show that commercial bank lending officers did not consider all the disclosure requirements presented to them to be equally important. Hence, to facilitate the actual needs of the users’ decision usefulness, it is imperative that when given the opportunity, users participate in the development of accounting standards.

The findings of this study will be of interest to accounting regulators for evaluating the successful implementation of IFRS for SMEs and planning the next review of IFRS for SMEs. The IASB and SME Implementation Group are presently considering ways to increase user involvement for the next review of IFRS for SMEs, and the findings of this study signify the need for user involvement in the standard setting process.

The introduction of the IFRS in the European Union, and many other countries, has not eliminated the need for research concerning the comparability of financial statements. The IFRS still offers many options. Extensive theoretical literature exists concerning the definition of comparable financial statements and the factors that influence this comparability. This paper aims to investigate this issue.

The paper uses a survey of 426 individuals who use European IFRS financial statements.

This study shows that most of the respondents (67 per cent) interpret comparability as uniformity, that is, that all companies using the same accounting methods. Comparability of financial statements over time and of companies operating within the same industry are considered to be the most important types of comparability. Both types are jeopardised because of continuous changes in IFRS and the lack of industry specific guidance. Only 41 per cent of the respondents believe that all IFRS financial statements are comparable. Not only accounting methods used, but also judgements made by preparers and interpretation differences are viewed as important factors influencing the comparability of financial statements.

As surveys are uncommon in accounting literature, often because of sampling problems, the validity of this research should be further improved by additional surveys or other empirical research approaches.

This study contributes to the research by determining which factors influence the comparability of financial statements according to the auditors, analysts and other users and what their view is on the comparability of financial statements.

The objective of this paper is to critically examine the Canadian Accounting Standards Board's (AcSB) legitimacy management strategies directed toward financial statement users.

Suchman's legitimacy typology is used as a lens through which the AcSB's legitimacy management strategies directed toward users are analyzed. The data sources consist of documentary public information available for the overall Canadian standard‐setting process and for a sample of standard‐setting projects.

The results indicate that the AcSB devotes much more efforts to symbolic features and cultural accounts than to pragmatic concerns to ensure its legitimacy toward financial statement users. The legitimacy management strategies used mimic those in the USA and at the international level. Such an isomorphism contributes to the AcSB's cognitive legitimacy and overall cultural legitimacy.

Future research could assess a standard‐setting institution legitimacy management strategies directed to other audiences such as preparers, auditors, or other groups that fall under a broader public interest umbrella.

The results provide Canadian users with a general picture of the AcSB's efforts in their regard and invite them to be sceptical and critical about the so‐called user perspective in standard setting. It also provides standard setters with a legitimacy framework that they can use to identify areas for improvement to enhance users' view of their legitimacy and to help them better fulfil their mission statement.

This paper innovates by studying a standard‐setting institution legitimacy management strategies directed toward a specific audience, financial statement users.