Capital market reactions to earnings announcements: empirical evidence on the difference in the information content of IAS-based earnings and EC-Directives-based earnings

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt V. Auer
2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-291
Author(s):  
Alexey Feigin ◽  
Andrew Ferguson ◽  
Matthew Grosse ◽  
Tom Scott

Purpose The purpose of this study is to consider why firms use different disclosure outlets. The authors argue that the firm's choice of disclosure outlet can be explained by voluntary disclosure theories and investigate whether the market response around different disclosure outlets varies. Design/methodology/approach The authors investigate differences in the characteristics of firms purchasing analyst research, holding investor presentations or Open Briefings and compare market reactions around each disclosure event. Findings The authors find that firm incentives to reduce information acquisition costs or mitigate disclosure risk affect firm disclosure outlet choice, and mixed evidence in support of talent signalling motivations. There is a lower absolute abnormal return around Open Briefings and a higher signed abnormal return around purchased analyst research. Research limitations/implications The research is exploratory in nature and only considers a small subset of disclosure outlets. There may be differences in information content across disclosure outlets. Originality/value They show disclosure outlets are not homogenous and provide empirical evidence voluntary disclosure theories help explain differences between firms’ use of disclosure outlets. Considering the growing number of disclosure outlets available, disclosure outlet choice is likely to be an increasingly important topic in accounting research.


1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Klenbort ◽  
Moshe Anisfeld

The subjects were presented with active and passive sentences. For each sentence, they had to choose between two alternative implications. The pattern of choices indicates that in the passive the logical subject was interpreted by the subjects as the focal point of the information asserted by the sentence and as the carrier of overall responsibility for the sentential proposition. In contrast to the passive, there was no clear pattern of preferences for the active. The difference between the two voices was attributed to their markedness asymmetry, the passive being marked and the active unmarked. It is concluded that the active offers a neutral structure for conveying information; a structure available for use when one does not want to superimpose on the information content any stylistic or connotational implications. The passive, on the other hand, suggests special connotations in addition to the basic message.


2021 ◽  
pp. 102115
Author(s):  
Manel Kammoun ◽  
Gabriel J. Power ◽  
Djerry C. Tandja M

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document