IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v65y2018icp44-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The unintended consequences of uncertainty disclosures made by auditors and managers on nonprofessional investor judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Kelton, Andrea Seaton
  • Montague, Norma R.

Abstract

We examine how recent proposals requiring augmented auditor and management disclosures highlighting estimate uncertainty influence investors' judgments and decisions. Specifically, we investigate the effects of auditor emphasis of matter (EOM) paragraphs, both independently and in combination with management disclosures of estimate ranges, on investors' likelihoods to invest. Using an experiment with nonprofessional investor participants, we find that the EOM has the unintended consequence of increasing investors' perceptions of management credibility, leading to higher likelihood of investment. Furthermore, despite the ability of ranges to highlight uncertainty and downside risk, we find that management's disclosure of an estimate range does not impact the positive effect of the EOM on investors' propensities to invest, unless management provides a wide range. In this circumstance, we find that a wide range mitigates the positive influence of the EOM on investment decisions. Our results have important implications for regulators, preparers, and users of financial statements as we find that augmented auditor and management reporting may have unintended consequences on investor perceptions of management credibility and resultant investment decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelton, Andrea Seaton & Montague, Norma R., 2018. "The unintended consequences of uncertainty disclosures made by auditors and managers on nonprofessional investor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 44-55.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:65:y:2018:i:c:p:44-55
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2017.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368217300831
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2017.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    2. Kristina Rennekamp, 2012. "Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1319-1354, December.
    3. Rose, Jacob M. & Wolfe, Christopher J., 2000. "The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 285-306, April.
    4. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    5. Kristy Hodge & Nava Subramaniam & Jenny Stewart, 2009. "Assurance of Sustainability Reports: Impact on Report Users' Confidence and Perceptions of Information Credibility," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 19(3), pages 178-194, September.
    6. Jennifer Winchel, 2015. "Investor Reaction to the Ambiguity and Mix of Positive and Negative Argumentation in Favorable Analyst Reports," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 973-999, September.
    7. Du, Ning & Budescu, David V. & Shelly, Marjorie K. & Omer, Thomas C., 2011. "The appeal of vague financial forecasts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 179-189, March.
    8. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce & Shankar Venkataraman, 2007. "How Disaggregation Enhances the Credibility of Management Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 811-837, September.
    9. Chen, Wei & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2013. "Judgment effects of familiarity with an analyst’s name," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 214-227.
    10. Lisa M. Gaynor & Andrea S. Kelton, 2014. "The effects of analyst forecasts and earnings trends on perceptions of management forecast credibility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 189-210, March.
    11. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    12. Gaynor, Lisa Milici & McDaniel, Linda & Yohn, Teri Lombardi, 2011. "Fair value accounting for liabilities: The role of disclosures in unraveling the counterintuitive income statement effect from credit risk changes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 125-134, April.
    13. Hirst, DE & Koonce, L & Miller, J, 1999. "The joint effect of management's prior forecast accuracy and the form of its financial forecasts on investor judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 101-124.
    14. Lachmann, Maik & Stefani, Ulrike & Wöhrmann, Arnt, 2015. "Fair value accounting for liabilities: Presentation format of credit risk changes and individual information processing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 21-38.
    15. Hirst, De, 1994. "Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 113-126.
    16. Tang, Michael & Zarowin, Paul & Zhang, Li, 2015. "How do analysts interpret management range forecasts?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 48-66.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayca Zeynep Suer, 2021. "Review of Critical Accounting Estimates in the Context of Key Audit Matters," Muhasebe Enstitusu Dergisi - Journal of Accounting Institute, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(65), pages 23-37, July.
    2. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Sau Yu Ong & Robyn Moroney & Xinning Xiao, 2022. "How do key audit matter characteristics combine to impact financial statement understandability?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 805-835, March.
    4. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    5. William D. Brink & Karen De Meyst & Tim V. Eaton, 2022. "The Impact of Human Rights Reporting and Presentation Formats on Non-Professional Investors’ Perceptions and Intentions to Invest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    2. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    3. Pennington, Robin R. & Kelton, Andrea Seaton, 2016. "How much is enough? An investigation of nonprofessional investors information search and stopping rule use," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 47-62.
    4. Sebastian Kaumanns, 2019. "“Some fuzzy math”: relational information on debt value adjustments by managers and the financial press," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(2), pages 755-794, December.
    5. Asay, H. Scott & Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M., 2018. "Do features that associate managers with a message magnify investors’ reactions to narrative disclosures?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 68, pages 1-14.
    6. Martin Schmidt, 2018. "A Note on the Proprietary and Entity Perspectives in Financial Statements: The Implications for two Current Controversial Issues," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 134-147, January.
    7. Lisa M. Gaynor & Andrea S. Kelton, 2014. "The effects of analyst forecasts and earnings trends on perceptions of management forecast credibility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 189-210, March.
    8. Yimeng Liang & Robyn Moroney & Michaela Rankin, 2020. "Say‐on‐pay judgements: the two‐strikes rule and the pay‐performance link," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(S1), pages 943-970, April.
    9. Chin Yee Gan & Lee Lee Chong & Zauwiyah Ahmad, 2023. "The effects of presentation of unrealized gain or loss of equity instruments on investing decision of investors," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(1), pages 265-279.
    10. Christopher D. Allport & John A. Pendley, 2010. "The impact of website design on the perceived credibility of internet financial reporting," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3‐4), pages 127-141, July.
    11. Chen, Wei & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2013. "Judgment effects of familiarity with an analyst’s name," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 214-227.
    12. Maria Misiuda & Maik Lachmann, 2022. "Investors’ Perceptions of Sustainability Reporting—A Review of the Experimental Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Chen, Wei & Han, Jun & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2016. "Investor reactions to management earnings guidance attributions: The effects of news valence, attribution locus, and outcome controllability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 83-95.
    14. Anna M. Cianci & Shana M. Clor-Proell & Steven E. Kaplan, 2019. "How Do Investors Respond to Restatements? Repairing Trust Through Managerial Reputation and the Announcement of Corrective Actions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 297-312, August.
    15. Shuwen (Wendy) Cai & Jayne M. Godfrey & Robyn Moroney, 2017. "Impact of Segment†level Natural Resource Operational Risk Reporting on Earnings Predictions," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 53(4), pages 431-449, December.
    16. Oliver Francis Koch & Alexander Benlian, 2017. "The effect of free sampling strategies on freemium conversion rates," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(1), pages 67-76, February.
    17. Clarence Goh, 2024. "Analysts’ Earnings per Share Forecasts: The Effects of Forecast Uncertainty and Forecast Precision on Investor Judgements," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 60(1), pages 172-204, March.
    18. Ozlem Arikan, 2018. "Financial estimates against investors’ preferences: anchoring, denial and spillover effects," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 299-320, April.
    19. Lei Dong & Bernard Wong‐On‐Wing, 2021. "Does causally linking nonfinancial measures influence investors' use of management’s disclosures of nonfinancial information?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 2269-2299, April.
    20. Chronopoulos, Panagiotis I. & Siougle, Georgia, 2018. "Examination of the information content of management range forecasts," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 201-210.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Range disclosure; Estimation uncertainty; Audit report; Emphasis of matter; Credibility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:65:y:2018:i:c:p:44-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.