IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/ngooec/v62y2016i4p52-61n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Issues in the Recognition versus Disclosure of Financial Information Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Novak Aleš

    (University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Slovenia)

Abstract

Empirical evidence from the academic literature on capital market effects of financial information placement (i.e., recognition on the face of the primary financial statements versus disclosure in the notes to the financial statements) is not straightforward. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the recognition versus required disclosure debate in a standard-setting context by exploring possible reasons for perceived differences between recognized and disclosed amounts. These differences, in our view, arise due to demonstrated auditors’ greater tolerance for misstatement in disclosed amounts, allowed noncompliance with disclosure requirements even in strong enforcement regimes, lesser care that preparers of financial statements devote to disclosures relative to recognized items as well as behavioural factors and differential processing costs related to the users of financial information. We believe that these arguments strengthen the case for the general preference for the recognition of financial information in the standard-setting context. The original scientific contribution of this paper is to systematically identify the reasons for the differences between recognized and disclosed amounts in financial statements. As such, this paper may provide a suitable basis for the justification of certain conceptual changes in the field of international accounting standards that are currently underway.

Suggested Citation

  • Novak Aleš, 2016. "Issues in the Recognition versus Disclosure of Financial Information Debate," Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, Sciendo, vol. 62(4), pages 52-61, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:ngooec:v:62:y:2016:i:4:p:52-61:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/ngoe-2016-0024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ngoe-2016-0024
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ngoe-2016-0024?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McKernan, John Francis, 2007. "Objectivity in accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 155-180.
    2. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 77-94, February.
    3. Jennifer Altamuro & Rick Johnston & Shailendra (Shail) Pandit & Haiwen (Helen) Zhang, 2014. "Operating Leases and Credit Assessments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 551-580, June.
    4. Barth, Mary E. & Beaver, William H. & Landsman, Wayne R., 2001. "The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 77-104, September.
    5. Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2003. "Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 337-386, December.
    6. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 77-94.
    7. Thorsten Knauer & Arnt Wöhrmann, 2016. "Market Reaction to Goodwill Impairments," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 421-449, September.
    8. Paul Boyle, 2010. "Discussion of ‘How do conceptual frameworks contribute to the quality of corporate reporting regulation?’," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 301-302.
    9. Stefano Cascino & Mark Clatworthy & Beatriz García Osma & Joachim Gassen & Shahed Imam & Thomas Jeanjean, 2014. "Who Uses Financial Reports and for What Purpose? Evidence from Capital Providers," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 185-209, December.
    10. Khaled Al Jifri & David Citron, 2009. "The Value-Relevance of Financial Statement Recognition versus Note Disclosure: Evidence from Goodwill Accounting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 123-140.
    11. Aboody, D, 1996. "Recognition versus disclosure in the oil and gas industry," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34, pages 21-32.
    12. Mary E. Barth & Greg Clinch & Toshi Shibano, 2003. "Market Effects of Recognition and Disclosure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 581-609, September.
    13. Shana M. Clor‐Proell & Laureen A. Maines, 2014. "The Impact of Recognition Versus Disclosure on Financial Information: A Preparer's Perspective," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 671-701, June.
    14. Dye, Ronald A., 2001. "An evaluation of "essays on disclosure" and the disclosure literature in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 181-235, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kusano, Masaki, 2020. "Does recognition versus disclosure affect risk relevance? Evidence from finance leases in Japan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    2. Ana I Lopes & Isabel Lourenço & Mark Soliman, 2013. "Do alternative methods of reporting non-controlling interests really matter?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(1), pages 7-30, April.
    3. Gonçalves, Rute & Lopes, Patrícia & Craig, Russell, 2017. "Value relevance of biological assets under IFRS," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 118-126.
    4. Begoña Giner & Francisca Pardo, 2018. "The Value Relevance of Operating Lease Liabilities: Economic Effects of IFRS 16," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 496-511, December.
    5. Yiwei Dou & M. H. Franco Wong & Baohua Xin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Reporting Quality on Corporate Investment Efficiency: Evidence from the Adoption of SFAS No. 123R," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2249-2266, May.
    6. Jeremy Michels, 2017. "Disclosure Versus Recognition: Inferences from Subsequent Events," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-34, March.
    7. Merz, Alexander, 2017. "What have we learned from SFAS 123r and IFRS 2? A review of existing evidence and future research suggestions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 14-33.
    8. Ma, Mark (Shuai) & Thomas, Wayne B., 2023. "Economic consequences of operating lease recognition," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2).
    9. Jannis Bischof & Ulf Brüggemann & Holger Daske, 2012. "Fair Value Reclassifications of Financial Assets during the Financial Crisis," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2012-010, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    10. Xiaoyan Cheng & David Smith, 2013. "Disclosure versus recognition: the case of expensing stock options," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 591-621, May.
    11. Alshehabi, Ahmad & Georgiou, George & Ala, Alessandro S., 2021. "Country-specific drivers of the value relevance of goodwill impairment losses," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    12. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 77-94, February.
    13. Jung Min Park & Hyoung Yong Lee & Sang Hyun Park & Ingoo Han, 2020. "Value Relevance of Accounts Receivable Factoring and Its Impact on Financing Strategy under the K-IFRS after COVID-19 from the Perspective of Accounting Big Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Kusano, Masaki, 2018. "Effect of capitalizing operating leases on credit ratings: Evidence from Japan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 45-56.
    15. Choudhary, Preeti, 2011. "Evidence on differences between recognition and disclosure: A comparison of inputs to estimate fair values of employee stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 77-94.
    16. Masaki KUSANO & Yoshihiro SAKUMA, 2019. "Recognition versus Disclosure and Audit Fees and Costs:Evidence from Pension Accounting in Japan," Discussion papers e-19-007, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    17. Chii-Shyan Kuo & Xu Wang & Shih-Ti Yu, 2016. "Investor perception of managerial discretion in valuing stock options: an empirical examination," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 733-773, October.
    18. Mei Luo & Shuai Shao & Frank Zhang, 2018. "Does financial reporting above or below operating income matter to firms and investors? The case of investment income in China," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1754-1790, December.
    19. Alexander Merz, 2020. "Expensing performance-vested executive stock options: is there underreporting under IFRS 2?," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 461-493, April.
    20. Terry Shevlin, 2013. "Some personal observations on the debate on the link between financial reporting quality and the cost of equity capital," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(3), pages 447-473, December.

    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:vrs:ngooec:v:62:y:2016:i:4:p:52-61:n:6. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.