Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether levels-classified fair values of US banks based on SFAS 157: Fair Value Measurements, as recognised in the quarterly financial statements of the banks over the period from 2008 until 2015, have predictive value in relation to the banks’ future financial performance measured by operating cash flows and earnings over a three-quarter horizon period. In addition, we consider whether the global financial crisis (GFC) impacted the relationship between SFAS 157–based levels‐classified fair values and bank future financial performance.

We develop hypotheses connecting the net levels-classified bank fair values based on SFAS 157 with banks’ future financial performance. We test the hypotheses by estimating three-period quarters’ ahead forecasting models. We also use these models to test for the impact of the GFC on the relationship between the fair values and future financial performance.

Our findings suggest that the levels-classified net fair values based on SFAS 157 have predictive value in relation to future cash flows for banks. There is significant variation, across the levels, in the predictive value of levels-classified net fair values for future performance. Our findings indicate that the GFC has limited impact on the predictive value for cash flows, but the GFC had a significant adverse impact on earnings, and, with allowance for the effect of the GFC, the Level 2 net fair values have predictive value for the future earnings.

The study provides the first direct empirical evidence on the relationship between the SFAS 157 levels-classified quarterly bank fair values recognised in publicly available financial statements and banks’ future performance. Our results are consistent with the findings from earlier research (Ehalaiye et al., 2017) using annual data disclosed in the supplementary notes to the financial statements of US banks based on SFAS 107. The study, makes a significant contribution to the question of frequency of reporting and to the disclosure vs recognition debate. The study has implications for policy makers, regulators and accounting standards setters such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board in evaluating the use of fair value measurement in financial reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the financial determinants of local government debt in New Zealand.

To investigate the financial determinants of local government debt in New Zealand, the authors analyse the relationship between key financial variables with local government debt in New Zealand based on the theories of fiscal accountability and moral hazard using a panel data methodology, specifically the pooled ordinary least squares regression model.

The findings suggest that council income is the major financial determinant of local government borrowing in New Zealand rather than infrastructural spending and that during the global financial crises (GFC) borrowing levels of New Zealand local councils was not significantly impacted. However, the findings indicate that post the GFC, low interest rates have stimulated increased borrowing activity by New Zealand local governments to fund infrastructure.

This paper is the first to examine the determinants of local government debt in New Zealand. The findings of this study contribute to better understanding of local government/municipality debt in New Zealand and internationally by providing evidence on the financial determinants of debt of local governments and the indirect use of government policy to control local government borrowing. The findings of this study are anticipated to affect local government practices and national government policies in relation to local government finances.

New Zealand (NZ) has no reporting standard or guidance for management commentary (MC) that accompanies financial reports. This is unusual, considering MC is provided by many entities and valued by users. Further, the guidance on MC provided by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in their Management Commentary Practice Statement 1 (MCPS1), which was issued in 2010, is currently under review. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the views of NZ’s financial reporting stakeholders, particularly users, preparers and auditors of financial reports for insights regarding the usefulness of MC.

To gain insights into the views of NZ’s financial reporting stakeholders on MC, this paper surveyed users, preparers and auditors of financial statements. This paper includes an analysis of their views on the objectives, content and principles that should underlie MC in financial reporting, based on the IASB’s MCPS1 with consideration of recent work by the IASB on the revision of MCPS1. In addition, the analysis provides insights as to whether the reporting of MC should be made mandatory, and whether assuring MC would increase its usefulness.

This study found that auditors generally view MC as less useful and more in need of assurance than do preparers and users. Respondents’ ratings indicate that the most important objective for MC is “to enable the assessment of the quality of management’s stewardship”. “Assessing the entity’s future prospects”, and “assessing future cash flows” are also highly rated objectives. The most important principle in preparing MC is identified as “focus on the most important and relevant information”, while the most important content element identified is “the entity's financial performance and position, and cash flows”.

This paper highlights the views of various stakeholders regarding MC reporting, particularly preparers and auditors whose views have not been noted previously in the literature. Also, this study should be of interest to both international and national financial reporting standard setters and regulators. It is particularly timely in view of the current IASB work towards revision and updating of MCPS1, as it provides current insights into what users, preparers and auditors perceive as the most important considerations for MC. This study also has implications for the XRB in NZ, where there is no prior research on stakeholders’ views on MC.

The purpose of this study is to examine the Nigerian Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative’s (NEITI) ineffectiveness in delivering public accountability to Nigerian citizens. Although this failure is recognised in prior literature, the authors contend that NEITI’s role is obscured by one-sided links to external factors.

The conceptual framework presented in this study is built around Dillard and Vinnari’s (2019) distinction between different accountability systems and Brown and Dillard’s (2020) complimentary insights on the technologies of hubris and humility. The analytical framework draws from Grant and Keohane’s (2005) modes of accountability, which the authors use to articulate conflicting accountability demands (to-whom and for-what) of NEITI’s operating relationships. Combined, the authors analyse official documents, media, reports and interview responses from members of NEITI’s National Stakeholders Working Group.

This study surfaces a variety of intersecting interests across NEITI’s operational relationships. Some of these interests are mutually beneficial like that of Donors and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Others run counter to each other, such as NEITI’s relationship to the Presidency which illustrates a key source of NEITI’s ineffectiveness. In discussing these interests, the authors articulate their connection to NEITI’s design as an accountability system and its embedded limitations.

The authors provide incremental understanding of prior insight regarding NEITI’s ineffectiveness by drawing attention to its fundamental design as an accountability system and its failure to deliver public accountability. To illuminate these failures, the authors also map NEITI’s competing accountability demands – the nexus of accountability – to demonstrate the complex socio-political reality within which NEITI is expected to operate. The authors posit that NEITI’s ineffectiveness has as much to do with NEITI itself, as it does with external factors like the quality of information disclosed and the unique Nigerian context.

In recent years, accounting for heritage assets has evolved but continuing the diversity in reporting practices remains problematic. Traditional cash-based budgets are still common in governmental accounting in some countries, but these ignore heritage assets as they are non-realisable and often do not generate revenue. Heritage assets do, however, incur cash outflows. The adoption of accrual accounting for recording heritage assets raises the technical issues of recognition and measurement of such assets, both in the balance sheet and income statements.

This chapter examines the financial reporting environment for heritage assets in New Zealand (NZ). The authors provide evidence on the reporting practices of heritage assets by five of NZ’s significant museums during the period 2011–2020, under IAS 16 and IPSAS 17 requirements. The authors analyse disclosures on heritage assets in the financial reports of these museums, including accounting policies, valuation and measurement, income statement impact, and related notes.

The findings suggest that, despite the existence of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (IAS 16) and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) (IPSAS 17) reporting standards during this period, a variety of reporting practices exist among NZ museums. For example, heritage assets are recognised either at fair value or historical cost on the balance sheet or not recognised in the financial statements at all. These findings suggest substantial non-uniformity in the actual measurement and reporting of heritage assets. They are of interest to policy-makers and regulators, particularly in countries that are currently considering adoption of IPSAS.

This introductory chapter elaborates on the tricky issue of measurement in public sector financial reporting, which arises due to the particular features of the public sector when compared to the private sector. It provides a summary of the book chapters, highlighting the theoretical/practical frameworks used, methodologies and conclusions. Three themes are identified in the book, namely, (a) frameworks and methodologies; (b) measuring and reporting the elements in financial statements; and (c) heritage. This chapter identifies important avenues for further research.