summary of accounting and operations data, Chairman or managing director's statement, Directors' report, Financial statements, Statement of material events, Description of related companies, Notice of the AGM, Other information and Reference information. Although this study was not statistically analyzed, it was reported that the general level of compliance appeared to be high. The examination of the association between ownership structure and voluntary disclosure of listed companies in two Asian Countries of Hong Kong and Singapore is conducted by Chau and Gray (2002:247). A linear multiple regression analysis is used to test the association between the dependent variable of voluntary disclosure and the independent variable of ownership structure. In addition to the ownership structure, a number of control variables are also included in the model to test the hypotheses. They find that the extent of outside ownership is positively associated with voluntary disclosures. In particular, the results also indicate that the level of information disclosure is likely to be less in family businesses. German companies are investigated by Glaum and Street (2003:64). They investigate the extent to which German companies comply with both the International Accounting Standards and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the two predominant internationally accepted sets of standards. Using a sample of 200 companies in their year 2000 financial statements, they discover that compliance ranges from 41.6% to 100%. The average compliance is 83.7% but significantly low for companies that apply IAS. They report that the overall level of disclosure is positively related to firms audited by Big 5 auditing firms and firms having cross-listings on US exchanges. Checks further reveal that industry, country of origin, profitability, multinationality, ownership structure, firm age, and growth has no significant impact on the companies’ disclosure practices. Similar to the studies of Glaum and Street (2003:64), Cuijpers and Buijink (2005:487) use IAS and US GAAP to examine the extent of compliance and determinants of voluntary adoption of these standards by firms listed and domiciled in the European Union (EU) for the period 1999. They find that firms voluntarily using nonlocal GAAP are more likely to be listed on a US exchange, the EASDAQ exchange in Brussels, and have more geographically dispersed operations. Furthermore, they are more likely to be
Figure 2.02: Framework for studying the Association between Disclosure Practices of Listed Companies and Corporate Attributes Dependent Variables Independent Variables Source: Developed by Researcher (2009) Table 2.01: Review of Studies Conducted in Developed and Developing Countries on Mandatory and Voluntary Disclosures Author(s) and Year Country of Study Independent variables/Dependent Variables Data Analysis N
1 Singhvi (1968) United states and India Independent Company size, profitability, number of shareholders, type of management Dependent Weighted disclosure index Univariate 2 Singhvi and Desai(1971) United states Independent Company size, listing status, profitability, audit firm, number of shareholders Dependent Weighted disclosure index Univariate and Linear Regression 3 Buzby(1975) United States Independent Company size, listing status Dependent Weighted disclosure index. Univariate and Matched-pair Ranked Correlation 4 Firth (1979) United Kingdom Independent Company size, listing status, audit firm Dependent Weighted disclosure index. Univariate 5 McNally et al (1982) New Zealand Independent Company size, rate of return, growth, audit firm, industry Dependent Weighted disclosure index. Univariate, Rank order Correlation 6 Chow and (1987) Mexico Independent Company size, financial leverage, assets in place. Dependent Weighted and unweighted disclosure index. Univariate, Bivariate Correlation and Multiple Regression 7 Wallace (1988) Nigeria Independent Various user groups Dependent Weighted disclosure index. Descriptive 8 Cooke(1989) Sweden Independent Company size, listing status, industry and parent company relationship. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Univariate, Linear Regression Stepwise 9 Cooke(1992) Japan Independent Company size, listing status, industry. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Univariate, Linear Regression Stepwise and Factor analysis for size variables. 10 Cooke(1993) Japan Independent Listing status Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Univariate
11 Malone et al(1993) United States of America Independent Company size, listing status, profitability, leverage, audit firm, number of shareholders Dependent Weighted disclosure index Stepwise Regression model 12 Wallace et al(1994) Spain Independent Company size, profitability, listing status, industry, liquidity, audit firm, gearing. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Multivariare Rank OLS Regresssion 13 Meek et al(1995) UK, US, France, Germany, Netherlands Independent Company size, profitability, country origin, listing status, industry, leverage, multinationality. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Linear Regression models 14 Raffournier(1995) Switzerland Independent Company size, profitability, ownership structure, internationality, industry, leverage, auditor type Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Univariate and Multiple Llinear Regression (stepwise) 15 Wallace and Naser(1995) Hong Kong Independent Company size, profitability, scope of business, audit firm, market capitalization, sales, liquidity, earnings return, outside ownership, foreign registered office, gearing Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index OLS and Rank OLS Regression 16 Inchausti(1997) Spain Independent Company size, Stock exchange, industry, profitability, leverage, auditing, dividends Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Correlation and Stepwise Regression 17 Adams and Hossain (1998) New Zealand Independent Company size, Stock exchange, industry, profitability, leverage, auditing, dividends Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Regression 18 Owusu-Ansah (1998) Zimbabwe Independent Company size, audit quality, ownership structure, industry type, company age, MNC affiliation, OLS
profitability, liquidity Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index 19 Entwistle(1999) Canada Independent Variables R & D expense proportion, capilitalization of R & D, Cross listing status, Size, Industry, Capital structure Dependent Variable Number of sentences Multiple Linear Regression 20 Tower et al(1999) Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand Independent Variables Country, Size, Leverage, Profit, Industry, Days Dependent Variable Disclosure ratio Univariate and General Linear Model 21 Depoers (2000) France Independent Company size, barriers to entry, labour pressure, leverage, ownership structure, audit firm. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index Multiple Linear Regression, Stepwise OLS 22 Gray et al (2001) United Kingdom Independent Profit, turnover, capital employed, industry classification, number of employees. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure index OLS Regression 23 Street and Gray(2001) China, France, Germany, Switzerland, Other Western Europe, Africa, Middle East, Former Soviet block Independent Listing status, company size, profitability, industry, type of auditor, type of accounting standard used, type of auditing standard used, country of domicile, size of home stock market. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Multiple Regression, Correlation, ANOVA, and Univariate 24 Bujaki and McConomy(2002) Canada Independent Variables Financial condition, Share issue, unrelated director, regulated industry, medium and size. Dependent Variable Disclosure score Linear Regression 25 Chow and Gray(2002) Hong Kong and Singapore Independent Ownership structure, size, leverage, audit firm, multinational, industry Linear Regression
and profitability. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index 26 Naser et al(2002) Jordan Independent Company size, Liquidity, Market Capitalization, Gearing, Sales, Profitability, Number of shareholders, % of Government ownership, % of individual ownership, % of Foreign ownership, % of Arab ownership, Size of Auditors, Type of Industry, Profit Margin, Number of employees. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Multiple Linear Regression, Correlation and Univariate 27 Camfferman and Cooke(2002) United Kingdom and Netherlands Independent Industry type, size, net income margin, debt ratio, liquidity ratio, return on equity, and audit firm Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index nonparametric statistic and Regression analysis 28 Ferguson, Lam and Lee(2002) Hong Kong Independent Firm type (Local, H-Share, Red chip), Industry type, firm size, leverage, multiple listing. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Univariate and Linear OLS Regression 29 Eng and Mak(2003) Singapore Independent Managerial ownership, government ownership, proportion of outside directors, sixe, leverage, growth, industry, audit firm, analyst, profitability. Dependent Weighted disclosure Index OLS Regression 30 Glaum and Street (2003) Germany Independent Company size, Industry type, profitability, multinational, domicile, maturity, growth, growth options, choice, ownership structure, country, listing. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Univariate and Ordinary Least Square (OLS)
31 Ali et al(2004) India, Pakistan and Bangladesh Independent Size, financial leverage, multinational, size of external auditor and profitability. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Univariate, Ordinary Least Square, and Factor analysis 32 Prencipe(2004) Italy Independent Correspondence between segments, growth rate, listing status, age, ownership dilution, profitability, size, leverage. Dependent Weighted and unweighted disclosure index. OLS regression 33 Akhtaruddin (2005) Bangladesh Independent Company size, company age, Industry type, profitability. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index Univariate and Ordinary Least Square (OLS) 34 Al-Shammari(2005) Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates Independent Company size, country of origin, Industry type, profitability, leverage, liquidity, auditor, internationality, ownership dilution, company age. Dependent Unweighted (equal weight/dichotomous) disclosure Index 35 Daske and Gebhardt(2006) Germany, Switzerland and Austria Log of market capitalization, log of assets, average number of analysts, total debt to market capitalization, PPE to total assets and return on assets. Multiple Linear Regression, Correlation and Univariate 36 Iatridis (2006) United kingdom Independent Size, growth, profitability, liquidity, leverage, taxation, management Dependent Binary Binary Logistic Regression and test. 37 Barako(2007) Kenya Independent Board composition, leadership structure, Board size, audit committee, shareholder concentration, foreign ownership, institutional ownership, firm size, external auditor firm, leverage, profitability, liquidity,industry type. Dependent Weighted disclosure index Univariate, Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Standard Errors (PCSEs). Source: Compiled from the literature reviewed by the researcher (2009)
Table 2.02 Summary of Studies Investigating the Association between Level of Disclosure and Company Size S/N Author (s) Proxy Reported Sign Significant(Sig)/Non Significant(Nsig) 1 Singhvi (1968) Assets + Sig 2 Singhvi and Desai(1971) Assets + Sig 3 Buzby(1975) Total assets + Sig 4 Firth (1979) Sales + Sig 5 McNally et al (1982) Total assets + Sig 6 Chow and (1987) Market value of equity plus book value of debt. + Sig 7 Cooke(1989) Assets + Sig Number of shareholders + Sig Sales + Sig 8 Cooke(1992) Factor variable capital stock, turnover , number of shareholders, total assets, current assets, fixed assets, shareholders' funds and bank borrowings. + Sig 9 Malone et al(1993) Total assets + Nsig 10 Wallace et al(1994) Log of total assets + Sig Log of turnover + Sig 11 Meek et al(1995) Total sales in $ + Sig 12 Raffournier(1995) Log of sales + Sig 13 Wallace and Naser(1995) Log of total assets + Sig 14 Inchausti(1997) Log of total assets + Sig Log of sales Not tested 15 Owusu-Ansah (1998) Log of total assets + Sig 16 Entwistle(1999) Total assets + Nsig 17 Tower et al(1999) Total Asset + Nsig
Table 2.03 Summary of Studies Investigating the Association between Level of Disclosure and Profitability S/N Author(s) Proxy Reported Sign Significant(Sig)/Non Significant(Nsig) 1 Singhvi (1968) Rate of return + Sig 2 Singhvi and Desai(1971) Rate of return + Sig Earnings margin + Sig 3 McNally et al (1982) Ratio of net income to total assets + Nsig 4 Malone et al(1993) Net income to net sales + Nsig 5 Wallace et al(1994) Earning to sales + Nsig 6 Meek et al (1995) Return on Assets + Nsig 7 Raffournier(1995) Net income * 100/net worth + Sig(moderate) 8 Wallace and Naser(1995) Profit margin - Sig 9 Inchausti(1997) Operating profit/total assets - Nsig Net income/equity Not tested 10 Owusu-Ansah (1998) Returns on capital employed + Sig 11 Tower et al (1999) Ratio of Profit/Total Assets + Nsig 12 Haniffa and Cooke (2002) Return on Equity i.e net income to total owners equity + Sig 13 Naser et al(2002) Return on Equity + Nsig Profit margin + Sig 14 Camfferman and Cooke(2002) Net Income margin + for 1 st category and – for 2nd category Sig for 1 category and Nsig for 1 category
Return on equity + Nsig 15 Chow and Gray(2002) + Nsig 16 Glaum and Street(2003) Net income before tax to shareholders’ equity - Nsig 17 Ali et al (2004) Return on total assets + Sig 18 Prencipe(2004) Operating income/ total assets + Nsig 19 Akhtaruddin (2005) Net profit on capital employed + Sig( marginally) Net profit on sales + Sig (marginally) 20 Return on equity = earnings b4 tax/ shareholders’ equity + Nsig 21 Barako(2007) Return on equity: Net profit to total shareholders’ fund. + for 4 categories Sig for 2 categories, Nsig for 2 categories Source: Compiled from the literature reviewed by the researcher (2009)
Table 2.04 Summary of Studies Investigating the Association between Level of Disclosure and Leverage S/N Author(s) Proxy Reported Sign Significant(Sig)/Non Significant(Nsig) 1 Chow and Book value of debt divided by size. + Nsig 2 Malone et al(1993) Ratio of debt to equity + Sig 3 Wallace et al(1994) Debt/equity + Nsig 4 Meek et al(1995) Debt/equity - Nsig 5 Raffournier(1995) Debt * 100/Total assets + Nsig 6 Inchausti(1997) Total liability/equity + Nsig 7 Tower et al (1999) Ratio of Long term debt to Total Equity + Nsig 8 Depoers (2000) Debt to total assets + Nsig 9 Haniffa and Cooke (2001) Debt ratio : Total debt to Total assets + Nsig 10 Bujaki and McConomy (2002) Total liability/ Total assets + Sig 11 Camfferman and Cooke (2002) Debt to common equity + for 1st category and – for 2nd category Sig for 1 category and Nsig for 1 category 12 Ferguson, Lam and Lee(2002) Long term liability to book value of shareholders’ equity + Sig(only for financial information) 13 Naser et al. (2002) Equity ratio + Sig 14 Eng and Mak (2003) Debt ratio - Sig 15 Ali et al(2004) Total debt to total tangible asset - Nsig 16 Prencipe (2004) Financial liabilities/ total assets + Sig 17 Al-Shammari (2005) Book value of debt/(Mkt value of equity + book value of debt) + Sig 18 Barako (2007) Debt ratio :Total debt to Total Asset + for 3 categories, - for 1 category Sig for 1 category, Nsig for 3 categories
Table 2.06 Summary of Studies Investigating the Association between Level of Disclosure and Industry Type S/N Author(s) Proxy Reported Sign Significant(Nsig) 1 McNally et al (1982) 21 distinct groups Nsig 2 Cooke(1989) Trading, manufacturing, services and conglomerate Trading - Trading (sig) Others Nsig 3 Cooke (1992) Manufacturing and others Manufac- turing + Manufacturing (sig) Others (nsig) 4 Meek et al (1995) Metal, Engineering, Consumer and Oil Consumer goods – others + Nsig 5 Raffournier(1995) Manufacturing/ Non manufacturing + Sig(moderate) 6 Inchausti(1997) Basic, manufacturing and service + Nsig 7 Owusu-Ansah (1998) Principal economic activity - nsig 8 Tower et al (1999) Resources, Manufacturing, Financial, Service + Nsig 9 Haniffa and Cooke (2002) Consumer, Industrial, Construction/Property,Trading/ Services, Plantation/Mining - Industrial Sig 1% 10 Camfferman and Cooke(2002) -,+,+ for 1st category and +,+,+ for 2nd category Conglomerate is significant for the two categories 11 Chow and Gray(2002) Electronics, publishing, food, shipping All + for 1st category and all – for 2nd category 12 Ferguson, Lam and Lee(2002) Utilities/consumer electronics - Nsig 13 Naser et al(2002) Manufacturing/Service - Nsig 14 Glaum and Steet (2003) Biotechnology, industrial services, Internet, IT/Software, Technology and Telecommunications 3 +, 3- Nsig 15 Akhtaruddin (2005) Traditional /Modern + Nsig 16 Al-Shammari(2005) Banking, Insurance, Manufacturing, Services + Sig 17 Barako(2007) Agriculture, Commercial and Services, Finance and Investments, and Industrial and Allied Agriculture +for 4 categories Agriculture Sig for all 4 categories Non
Maximum 0.7148 9.3400 45.0000 0.8100 BANKING Mean 0.1762 6.1612 9.4700 0.1188 Minimum 0.0278 2.4500 1.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.3384 17.1000 36.0000 1.0000 FOOD AND HEALTH Mean 0.2877 1.1992 24.4200 0.3346 Minimum 0.0216 0.3900 1.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.5954 2.3800 41.0000 0.7200 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Mean 0.3518 1.0850 19.8000 0.3060 Minimum -0.4192 -3.1700 10.0000 0.0000 Maximum 1.1027 5.7200 32.0000 0.6000 SERVICE Mean 0.2139 0.5950 15.6700 0.1325 Minimum -0.0184 -4.3500 1.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.5010 2.6100 34.0000 0.4000 CONGLOMERATE Mean 0.1436 1.8814 31.2900 0.4650 Minimum -0.5363 0.5500 28.0000 0.20000 Maximum 1.0752 3.7100 35.0000 0.6100 PETROLEUM MARKETING Mean 0.5502 5.6000 21.2900 0.5357 Minimum 0.1683 1.9700 8.0000 0.2500 Maximum 0.9928 10.8600 28.0000 0.7400 INSURANCE AND MORTGAGE Mean 0.1403 2.9217 13.8300 0.0675 Minimum 0.0368 0.2800 2.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.3191 23.7900 28.0000 0.5100 TOTAL Mean 0.2072 2.9380 19.2700 0.2789 Minimum -2.1204 -4.3500 1.0000 0.0000 Maximum 1.1027 23.7900 45.0000 1.0000 Source: Field Study (2009) 4.1.2.3 Leverage Figure 4.03: Box Plot of Leverage Ratio by Sector Source: Field Study (2009)
45 out of 61 non-financial companies are also audited by the Big 4. With respect to industry, as illustrated in Table 4.10, all the 17 companies in the banking sector and the 7 companies in the petroleum companies are being audited by the Big 4. This reveals the Big 4 audit firms are appointed auditors of listed companies in Nigeria, especially Akintola Williams Delloite with the biggest market share of 54%. The big share is attributable to the merger of the Africa’s foremost accounting firm, Akintola Williams with KPMG Nigeria in 2003, for better and enhanced efficiency. This merger has led to the enlargement of the firm and their clientele. 4.1.2.7 Type of Industry The sampled companies are classified into nine industries by the researcher. They are agriculture, manufacturing (Automobile and Tyre, Industrial, Packaging, Textile), Banking (local and foreign) and Service (maritime, aviation, commercial, computer, hotel), Food/Health (Breweries, Food and Beverages, Health care), Building (Building materials, Chemical and Paints, Real Estate), Conglomerate, Petroleum marketing, and Insurance/Mortgage (Insurance and Mortgage). These nine industries are further classified as financial and non-financial sectors. The distribution of the sampled industries per sector is as shown in Figure 4.11 below. Of the 90 sampled companies, 29 are financial companies while 61 are non-financial companies. This reflects the ratio of the financial companies to non-financial companies at the Nigerian Stock Exchange in 2006. Table 4.11: Industries by Sector Cross-tabulation Source: Field Study (2009) 4.1.3 Normality Tests The data was examined for normality. Appendix VI reveals the non-linearity of the dependent and independent data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests are shown in Table 4.12 below. Table 4.12: Tests of Normality Source: Field Study (2009) It can be seen from above, that the test is significant for all the continuous independent and dependent variables except for the factored size variable, with p >
Geopolitical Zone: South-West South-East South-South North-Central North-East North-West Total Gender: Male Female Total Highest Academic Qualification: HND BSc./BA MBA/MSc. Ph.D Total Professional Qualification: ACA/FCA ACCA/FCCA CNA/FCNA ACA&ACCA Others Total Occupation: Accountant Auditor Stockbroker Financial Consultant Accounting Educator Banker Others Total Work Experience: 1-5 years 6-10years Above 10years Total 245 61 48 33 61 35 483 318 165 483 83 272 117 11 483 150 24 15 4 40 233 106 134 16 40 85 73 27 483 215 121 147 483 50.7 12.6 9.9 6.8 12.6 7.2 100.0 65.8 34.2 100.0 17.2 56.3 24.2 2.3 100.0 64.4 10.3 6.4 1.7 17.2 21.9 27.7 3.3 8.3 17.6 15.5 5.6 100.0 44.5 25.1 30.4 100.0 50.7 63.4 73.3 80.1 92.8 100.0 65.8 100.0 17.2 73.5 97.7 100.0 64.4 74.7 81.1 82.8 100.0 21.9 49.7 53.0 61.3 78.9 94.4 100.0 44.5 69.6 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2009
SA A D SD Weighted Sample M SDev Company Size 133 27.5% 239 49.5% 73 15.1% 20 4.1% 465 96.3% 3.04 .784 Profitability 114 23.6% 255 52.8% 86 17.8% 13 2.7% 468 96.9% 3.00 .785 Leverage 65 13.5% 250 51.8% 126 26.1% 11 2.3% 452 93.6% 2.82 .698 Company Age. 70 14.5% 190 39.3% 148 30.6% 19 3.9% 427 88.4% 2.73 .785 Industry Type 110 22.8% 243 50.3% 90 18.6% 18 3.7% 461 95.4% 2.97 .768 Size of Audit firm 94 19.5% 204 42.2% 137 28.4% 28 5.8% 463 95.9% 2.79 .835 Multinational Affiliation 123 25.5% 224 46.4% 97 20.1% 22 4.65% 466 96.5% 2.96 .813 Inadequate training of preparers 77 15.9% 181 37.5% 130 26.9% 37 7.7% 425 88.0% 2.70 .865 Poor audit quality by external auditors 66 13.7% 196 40.6% 128 26.5% 41 8.5% 431 89.2% 2.67 .849 Ineffective and inefficient monitoring mechanisms 75 15.5% 212 43.9% 102 21.1% 41 8.5% 430 89.0% 2.75 .855 Inadequate sanctions to deter non-compliance 95 19.7% 196 40.6% 107 22.2% 35 7.2% 433 89.6% 2.81 .869 Cumbersome accounting standards 55 11.4% 197 40.8% 126 26.1% 53 11.0% 431 89.2% 2.59 .863 Source: Field Study (2009) This provides answers to Research question 4 and Objective 4. Item 19 addresses the Company Size (Table 4.34). Three hundred and seventy two respondents (77%) were affirmative that company size influences the extent of disclosure by listed companies which far supersedes the combined percentage of those
Operations of MNCs and their local affiliates are frequently evaluated and monitored by international governmental agencies such as the United Nations. With these factors, MNCs are more likely to insist on full compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the host countries by their affiliates. Moreover, it enhances their bargaining powers with their host countries (Owusu-Ansah, 1998:615). According to Owusu-Ansah, (1998:615) most multinationals use sophisticated accounting systems that are usually transplanted in their affiliates. So by adoption, these affiliates are likely to operate a similar sophisticated accounting and reporting system like their multinational parent. This means the cost of producing information will be lesser than information costs incurred by local firms with no multinational parent. This will enable them to disclose detailed information at minimal costs. 5.2 Summary of Empirical Findings Research Question 1: What is the extent of compliance of listed financial and non-financial Nigerian companies with the required disclosures of the National Accounting Standard Board (NASB)? Empirical findings from the content analysis of the annual reports reveal that the mean disclosure levels were 0.8970 and 0.8770 for financial and non-financial companies respectively. This is in line with the primary data analysis in which respondents are of the opinion that the financial companies comply more than the non-financial companies with the disclosure requirements of the SASs. The independent samples t-test conducted to compare the SAS disclosure level for financial and non-financial listed companies reveal that there is no significant difference in disclosure levels for financial and non-financial listed companies. t (88) = 1.236, p=.22 and eta squared = 0.017. This shows that the magnitude of the differences in the mean is very small. The result confirms that both the financial and non-financial companies are not fully complying with the disclosure requirements of the NASB. This is in congruence with the studies of Wallace (1988:362), World Bank (2004:12) and Adeyemi (2006). Research Question 2: What is the extent of compliance of listed financial and non-financial Nigerian companies with the required disclosures of IAS/IFRSs that are not contained in the SASs?
Buzby, S.L. (1975). Company size, listed versus unlisted stocks, and the extent of financial disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 13 (1), 16-37. Camfferman, K. and Cooke, T.E. (2002). An analysis of disclosure in the annual reports of U.K. and Dutch Companies. Journal of International Accounting Research, 1, 3-30. Chamisa, E.E (2000). The relevance and observance of the IASC Standards in developing countries and the Particular Case of Zimbabwe”, The International Journal of Accounting, 35 (2), 267–286. Chau, G.K. and Gray, S.J. (2002). Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore. The International Journal of Accounting, 37, 247–265. Chavent, M., Ding, Y., Fu, L., Stolowy, H. and Wang, H. (2006). Disclosure and determinants studies: An extension using the Divisive Clustering Method (DIV). European Accounting Review, 15 (2), 181–218. Choi, F.D.S (1973). Financial disclosure and entry to the European capital market”, Journal of Accounting Research, 11 (2), 159-175. Choi, F.D.S. (1974). European disclosure: The competitive disclosure hypothesis. Journal of International Business Studies, 5 ( 2), 15-23. Chow, C.W. and Wong-Boren, A. (1987). Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican corporations. The Accounting Review, 62 (3), 533-541. Cooke, T. E. (1989). Disclosure in the corporate annual reports of Swedish companies. Accounting and Business Research, 19 (74), 113-124. Cooke, T.E. (1992). The impact of size, stock market listing and industry type on disclosure in the annual reports of Japanese listed corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 22 (87), 229 -237.
Okike, E.N.M. (2000). Extension of information in accounting reports: An investigation. Nigerian Financial Review, 3(2). Osisioma, B.C. (2001). Fine tuning corporate reporting task for accountants, The Certified National Accountants, 9 (2), 40-55. Owusu-Ansah, S. (1998). The impact of corporate attributes on the extent of mandatory disclosure and reporting by listed companies in Zimbabwe. The International Journal of Accounting, 33 (5), 605-631. Owusu-Ansah, S and Yeoh, J.(2005). The effect of legislation on corporate disclosure practices. ABACUS, 41 (1 ), 92 - 109. Prencipe, A. (2004). Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. European Accounting Review, 13 (2), 319 – 340. Raffournier, B. (1995). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by Swiss listed companies. European Accounting Review, 4 (2), 261-280. Rahman, M.Z. (1998). The role of accounting in the East Asian financial crisis: lessons learned? Transnational Corporations,7( 3), pp. 1-52 Ray, D.D. ( 1962). Corporate Reporting and Investment Decisions. by A. R. Cerf, book review in The Accounting Review, 37 (3), 595-596. Schipper, K. (2007). Required disclosures in financial reports. The Accounting Review, 82 ( 2), 301–326. Singhvi, S.S. (1968). Corporate disclosure through annual reports in the United States of America and India. The Journal of Finance, 23(3), 551-552.
The following factors are responsible for the extent of disclosure by listed companies. 19 Company size SD D A SA 20 Profitabililty SD D A SA 21 Leverage SD D A SA 22 Company age SD D A SA 23 Industry type SD D A SA 24 Size of external audit firm SD D A SA 25 Multinational affiliation SD D A SA 26 Inadequate training of preparers SD D A SA 27 Poor audit quality by external auditors SD D A SA 28 Ineffective and inefficient monitoring mechanisms SD D A SA 29 Inadequate sanctions to deter non-compliance SD D A SA 30 Cumbersome accounting standards SD D A SA Section E: Consequences of non-compliance with disclosure requirements of the accounting standards. 31 Failure of some Nigerian listed companies is due to partial or non-disclosure of relevant accounting information. SD SD D A SA 32 Partial or non-disclosure of relevant accounting information impedes investors’ decisions. SD D A SA 33 Ensuring full disclosure of relevant accounting standards circumvents fraud. SD D A SA 34 Partial or non-disclosure of relevant accounting information limits prudent allocation of resources. SD D A SA 35 Partial or non-disclosure of relevant accounting information erodes investors' confidence. SD D A SA
APPENDIX VI Normal Plots of the Dependent Variables APPENDIX VII Agglomeration Schedule of other Voluntary Items Stage Cluster Combined Coefficients Stage Cluster First Appears Next Stage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 77 70 66 17 78 56 74 5 40 69 58 68 64 89 88 87 81 79 78 76 75 74 72 71 70 67 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 30 12 34 68 6 39 9 40 54 32 38 33 53
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 50 38 37 45 49 48 18 6 27 21 26 16 6 19 9 55 6 44 32 33 1 16 57 7 15 27 5 30 3 37 26 65 63 59 54 53 51 50 45 43 42 34 25 21 84 82 80 77 73 69 68 66 62 61 60 58 56 49 48 46 39 29 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 22 8 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 1 0 10 12 3 0 0 0 11 6 18 19 0 0 0 20 54 43 21 40 41 45 26 39 26 44 35 30 60 61 70 46 63 48 51 57 68 51 65 58 48 66 50 59 55 47 Stage Cluster Combined Coefficients Stage Cluster First Appears Next Stage Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 8 6 26 27 10 24 33 6 64 38 24 8 1 15 3 19 18 47 28 32 26 30 57 52 83 40 37 13 41 35 85 36 1.000 1.286 1.333 1.467 1.500 1.667 1.750 1.875 2.000 2.000 2.083 2.250 2.333 2.333 2.500 2.500 0 30 44 39 0 0 33 46 13 15 50 45 34 38 42 27 20 0 0 32 47 41 36 0 0 9 43 0 0 0 0 0 56 52 49 63 62 55 71 64 70 78 64 62 69 79 66 65
Nampak Nigeria Plc. 7up Bottling Co Plc Beta Glass Company Plc. CAP Plc Cappa and D'alberto Plc Dangote Flour Mills Plc Flour Mills Nigeria Plc GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria Plc Guniness Nigeria Plc. Livestock Feeds Plc. May&Baker Nigeria Plc Morison Industries Plc Neimeth International Pharm NEM Insurance Company (Nig.) Plc. Nestle Nigeria Plc Nigerian Aviation Handling Company Plc. Nigerian Bottling Company Plc Nigerian Breweries Plc. Nigerian Enamel Plc. A.G. Leventis ( Nigeria) Plc Access Bank Plc. Afribank Nigeria Plc. Ashaka Cement Plc. Cement Co. of Northern Nigeria Plc. Chellarams. Chevron Oil Nigeria Plc. ConOil Nigeria Plc. Cornerstone Insurance Co. Plc. DN Meyer Plc. Ecobank Nigeria Plc. Ecobank Transnational Incorporated Ekocorp Nigeria Plc First Aluminium Nigeria Plc. GTBank Plc. IBTC Charterd Bank Plc. Ikeja Hotels Plc Intercontinental Bank Plc. John Holt Plc. Law Union and Rock Insurance Plc. Mobil Oil Nigeria Dunlop Nigeria Plc. First Bank of Nigeria Plc. Zenith Bank Plc. Afprint Nigeria Plc. AIICO Insurance Plc Avon Crowncaps and Containers Plc. BOC Gases Nigeria Plc. Fidelity Bank Plc. Greif Nigeria Plc. Lasaco Assurance Plc. Prestige Assurance Plc. SCOA Nigeria Plc. Standard Alliance Insurance Plc. Tripple Gee and Company Plc. UTC Nigeria Plc Academy Press Nigeria Plc. African Petroleum Plc. Aluminium Extrusion Industries Plc. Costain (WA) Plc Diamond Bank Plc. Eterna Oil and Gas Plc. Japaul Oil and Maritime Services Plc. Linterlinked Plc Nigerian Wire Plc. Okomu Oil Palm Plc. Poly Products Nigeria Plc. Starco Insurance Plc. Thomas Wyatt Plc. Trans-Nationwide Express Plc. Union Homes Savings and Loan Plc