IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v90y2021ics0361368220300581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The importance of quantifying uncertainty: Examining the effects of quantitative sensitivity analysis and audit materiality disclosures on investors’ judgments and decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Eilifsen, Aasmund
  • Hamilton, Erin L.
  • Messier, William F.

Abstract

In recent years, standard setters worldwide have considered how to enhance financial statement users’ understanding of the estimation uncertainty contained in many financial statement items. Our study examines two disclosures expected to help investors evaluate the reliability of subjective fair value estimates: a quantitative sensitivity analysis (QSA) and the auditor’s quantitative materiality threshold. Using an experiment, we predict and find that investors judge the reliability of a reported estimate to be higher and are more willing to invest when a QSA disclosure is indicative of low sensitivity (i.e., greater precision) compared to high sensitivity (i.e., greater imprecision), but only if the auditor’s materiality threshold is also disclosed. When materiality is not disclosed, investors fail to recognize differences in reliability between the two levels of sensitivity, even though the amount of imprecision in the low sensitivity condition represents a fraction of materiality, while in the high sensitivity condition, this amount exceeds materiality multiple times over. Furthermore, when both disclosures are absent and only a qualitative description of sensitivity is provided—as required by current standards—investors perceive the disclosure to be relatively uninformative and respond to the ambiguous disclosure by decreasing their willingness to invest. The results of our study should be informative to accounting and auditing standard setters as they continue to consider the types of disclosures that may help investors understand the most complex and subjective aspects of financial reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Eilifsen, Aasmund & Hamilton, Erin L. & Messier, William F., 2021. "The importance of quantifying uncertainty: Examining the effects of quantitative sensitivity analysis and audit materiality disclosures on investors’ judgments and decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:90:y:2021:i:c:s0361368220300581
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368220300581
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2020.101169?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. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2008. "Ambiguity, Information Quality, and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 197-228, February.
    2. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    3. Elliott, W.B. & Hodge, F. & Kennedy, J.J. & Pronk, M., 2007. "Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors?," Other publications TiSEM 20271f1d-d385-4122-a175-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Yanan He & Hun‐Tong Tan & Feng Yeo & Jixun Zhang, 2019. "When Do Qualitative Risk Disclosures Backfire? The Effects of a Mismatch in Hedge Disclosure Formats on Investors' Judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 2093-2112, December.
    6. Richardson, Scott A. & Sloan, Richard G. & Soliman, Mark T. & Tuna, Irem, 2005. "Accrual reliability, earnings persistence and stock prices," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 437-485, September.
    7. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    8. Christensen, Brant E. & Eilifsen, Aasmund & Glover, Steven M. & Messier, William F., 2020. "The effect of audit materiality disclosures on investors’ decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    9. Shana M. Clor†Proell & Chad A. Proell & Terry D. Warfield, 2014. "The Effects of Presentation Salience and Measurement Subjectivity on Nonprofessional Investors' Fair Value Judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 45-66, March.
    10. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.
    11. Paul J. Coram & Theodore J. Mock & Jerry L. Turner & Glen L. Gray, 2011. "The Communicative Value of the Auditor's Report," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 235-252, September.
    12. Pflug, Georg Ch. & Pichler, Alois & Wozabal, David, 2012. "The 1/N investment strategy is optimal under high model ambiguity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 410-417.
    13. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    14. Ling L. Harris & Jessen L. Hobson & Kevin E. Jackson, 2016. "The Effect of Investor Status on Investors' Susceptibility to Earnings Fixation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 152-171, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    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. David Hay & Noel Harding & Chris Gan & Irene Ge & Linh Ho & Dinithi Ranasinghe & Harj Singh & Nigar Sultana & Shan Zhou, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on the Proposed Standard on Assurance Engagements over GHG Emissions Disclosure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4813-4820, December.
    2. Hien Hoang & Robyn Moroney & Soon‐Yeow Phang & Xinning Xiao, 2023. "Investor reactions to key audit matters: Financial and non‐financial contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3325-3349, September.
    3. Elsayed, Mohamed & Elshandidy, Tamer & Ahmed, Yousry, 2023. "Is expanded auditor reporting meaningful? UK evidence," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Gábor-Tóth, Enikő & Georgarakos, Dimitris, 2018. "Economic policy uncertainty and stock market participation," CFS Working Paper Series 590, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    3. Bischof, Severin Friedrich & Boettger, Tim M. & Rudolph, Thomas, 2020. "“Curated subscription commerce: A theoretical conceptualizationâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    4. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    5. Frederik Neugebauer, 2020. "ECB Announcements and Stock Market Volatility," WHU Working Paper Series - Economics Group 20-02, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management.
    6. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    7. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    8. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2014. "Biased Bayesian learning with an application to the risk-free rate puzzle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 79-97.
    9. Greg Barron & Eldad Yechiam, 2009. "The coexistence of overestimation and underweighting of rare events and the contingent recency effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 447-460, October.
    10. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    11. Bracha, Anat & Brown, Donald J., 2012. "Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 67-80.
    12. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    13. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    14. Tan, Seet-Koh & Koonce, Lisa, 2011. "Investors’ reactions to retractions and corrections of management earnings forecasts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 382-397.
    15. Lunn, Pete, 2011. "The Role of Decision-Making Biases in Ireland's Banking Crisis," Papers WP389, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    16. Jean-Louis Arcand & Grégoire Rota Graziosi, 2005. "Tax Compliance and Rank Dependent Expected Utility," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, June.
    17. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Muniza Askari & Marco Gazel, 2018. "Confidence biases and learning among intuitive Bayesians," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 453-482, May.
    18. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    19. Nawel Ayadi & Alexandre Lapeyre, 2016. "Consumer purchase intentions for green products: Mediating role of WTP and moderating effects of framing," Post-Print hal-03829732, HAL.
    20. Anat Bracha & Donald J. Brown, 2007. "Affective Decision Making: A Behavioral Theory of Choice," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1633R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Apr 2009.

    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:90:y:2021:i:c:s0361368220300581. 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.