to those who responded later) and undertake
statistical analyses to determine whether any diVerences exist in background
characteristics and the extent of reading of the annual report. The rationale
behind using this procedure follows Morgan (1974) who suggests that non-
respondents are more like late respondents; a comparison of early and late
respondents would therefore at least give an indication of any likely diVer-
ences between those responding and those not responding.
We conducted Chi-Square tests for gender, portfolio size, accounting
qualifications and on the extent of reading of all sections of the annual
report, plus a Pearson’s correlation for our estimate of the size of shareholding
in the company. The results revealed no significant diVerences between the
two groups based on the test variables.
Choice of company
The results of our survey may not be representative of shareholders’ read-
ership of the reports of other companies because of the individual char-
acteristics of our selected company. Although we did not test this, we havethe corporate report and the private shareholder 259
no reason to believe that either the make-up of the shareholder body or
the form of the company’s annual report is significantly unusual. Some
confirmation of this is provided by the similarity of our findings and those
from a number of other surveys of shareholders in other companies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this survey suggest that the annual report is still not widely
read. In this respect, there has been little change since the L&T studies
despite the significant changes in financial reporting. In particular, there
has been an increase in the (voluntary) narrative sections of the annual
report, although whether this is due to management’s desire to enlighten
or to manipulate shareholders is an open question.
It appears that in the UK, few shareholders read the newer sections of
the annual report. This may simply be a question of shareholders needing
more time to become familiar with the new statements. Alternatively, it may
be that investors do not regard the information as being relevant to them.
Shareholders’motivations for investing in the first place and their subsequent
information needs may vary widely. It is not easy to determine what
information shareholders actually want: for example, when asked to indicate
what additional information they would like to see disclosed, few of our
respondents provided the same or even vaguely similar answers. The extent
to which weight is given to the supposed needs of private shareholders poses
a serious problem for accounting standard-setters. In the end, it is unlikely
that general purpose annual reports are ever going to satisfy the widely
diVering information needs of a large body of shareholders.
Notes
1. There are some similarities between the conditions of the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s
in terms of the accounting profession’s response to concerns about the quality of financial
reporting and auditing.
2. Caparo Indistries plc v. Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568.
3. Although interviews permit more searching questions to be asked and therefore more
penetrating results to be obtained, there may still be diYculties in accurately categorizing
interviewees’ answers as indicated by Briston (1977, p. 506).
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。