IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/usm/journl/aamjaf00901_89-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Risk Report Formats on Investment Analyst Decisions: An Experimental Case from Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Negina Kencono Putri

    (Accounting Department, Jenderal Soedirman University, HR. Boenyamin 708, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia)

  • Triani Arofah

    (Accounting Department, Jenderal Soedirman University, HR. Boenyamin 708, Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia)

Abstract

This study aims to examine the impact on investment decisions of risk information reported by banking companies in Indonesia pursuant to Indonesia SFAS 60, adopted from IFRS 7. The standard requires banking companies in Indonesia to prepare a complete report (qualitative and quantitative) either in the format of a risk-sensitivity analysis, as a value at risk, or in a tabular format. This study was conducted utilising an on-line field experimental method with 3 × 2 mixed designs that involved 54 investment analysts as participants. The experiment was conducted to test whether different formats of risk information influence the investment decision-making process. The results showed that participants have confidence in making investments when the risk information presented is in a complete risk format. This is shown by a positive and significant increase in confidence when participants analyse the complete risk information compared to risk information that is presented in a qualitative form only. The findings also showed a difference when risk information is presented in a tabular format compared to risk information presented in a sensitivity analysis or a value at risk format. Most participants chose the tabular format because it is considered more informative and thought to improve the reasoning of the investment analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Negina Kencono Putri & Triani Arofah, 2013. "The Impact of Risk Report Formats on Investment Analyst Decisions: An Experimental Case from Indonesia," Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance (AAMJAF), Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, vol. 9(1), pages 89-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:usm:journl:aamjaf00901_89-112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web.usm.my/journal/aamjaf/vol%209-1-2013/Art%205%20%2889-112%29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    2. Wong, MHF, 2000. "The Association between SFAS No. 119 derivatives disclosures and the foreign exchange risk exposure of manufacturing firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 387-417.
    3. 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.
    4. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    5. J. Richard Dietrich & Steven J. Kachelmeier & Don N. Kleinmuntz & Thomas J. Linsmeier, 2001. "Market Efficiency, Bounded Rationality, and Supplemental Business Reporting Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 243-268, September.
    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. Jeremy Michels, 2017. "Disclosure Versus Recognition: Inferences from Subsequent Events," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-34, March.
    2. Andraszewicz, Sandra & Wu, Ke & Sornette, Didier, 2019. "Behavioural effects and market dynamics in field and laboratory experimental asset markets," Economics Discussion Papers 2019-33, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Markus Arnold & Alexander Bassen & Ralf Frank, 2018. "Timing effects of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an experimental study with investment professionals," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 45-71, January.
    4. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2011. "Rewarding Altruism? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ginger Zhe Jin & Andrew Kato & John A. List, 2010. "That’S News To Me! Information Revelation In Professional Certification Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 104-122, January.
    6. Deng, Weiguang & Li, Dayang & Zhou, Dong, 2019. "Beauty and Job Accessibility: New Evidence from a Field Experiment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 369, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    7. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    8. Mujcic, Redzo & Frijters, Paul, 2013. "Still Not Allowed on the Bus: It Matters If You're Black or White!," IZA Discussion Papers 7300, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Rodriguez, Luz Angela & Johnson, Nancy, 2011. "Collective action for watershed management: field experiments in Colombia and Kenya," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 275-303, June.
    10. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    11. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    12. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    13. Linsley, Philip M. & Shrives, Philip J., 2006. "Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosures in the annual reports of UK companies," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404.
    14. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    15. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    16. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    17. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    18. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    19. 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.
    20. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.

    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:usm:journl:aamjaf00901_89-112. 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: Journal Division, Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aammmea.html .

    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.