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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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..
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. Gábor-Tóth, Enikő & Georgarakos, Dimitris, 2018. "Economic policy uncertainty and stock market participation," CFS Working Paper Series 590, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    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. Sokolovskyi, Dmytro, 2018. "Analysis of dependencies between state tax behavior and macroeconomic indicators," MPRA Paper 86417, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Frederik Neugebauer, 2020. "ECB Announcements and Stock Market Volatility," WHU Working Paper Series - Economics Group 20-02, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management.
    8. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    11. 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.
    12. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    13. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    14. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Yasemin Coskun, 2018. "The investigation of investor behaviors in terms of behavioral finance and investor psychology: The case of Sultanhisar district," Prizren Social Science Journal, SHIKS, vol. 2(2), pages 154-181, December.
    20. 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.

    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.