standards overload and differential reporting.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
1/28
Southern Methodist University
SMU Digital Repository
W*&%# Pa+! C*2 Sc$**' * B%!
1-1-1984
Standards Overload and Diferential ReportingN. C. ChurchillSouthern Methodist University
M. F. van BredaSouthern Methodist University
F*''* $% a a%%*a' *& a: $7+://%#%a'!+*%*3..!/b%!_*&%#+a+!
Pa * $! B%! C**
% *c! % b*#$ * 3* * !! a *+! acc! b3 $! C*2 Sc$**' * B%! a SMU D%#%a' R !+*%*3. I $a b!! acc!+! * %c'%*
% W*&%# Pa+! b3 a a$*%! a%%a* * SMU D%#%a' R!+*%* 3. F* *! %*a%*, +'!a! 0% % $7+://%#%a'!+*%*3..!.
R!c*!! C%a%*C$c$%'', N. C. a 0a B!a, M. F., "Saa O0!'*a a D%5!!%a' R!+*%#" (1984). Working Papers. Pa+! 64.$7+://%#%a'!+*%*3..!/b%!_*&%#+a+!/64
http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/622?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers/64?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/http://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers/64?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/622?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/business_workingpapers?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalrepository.smu.edu/?utm_source=digitalrepository.smu.edu%2Fbusiness_workingpapers%2F64&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages -
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
2/28
s
n s t
r t
Da
s
. To x
as
752
75
STA
NDAR
DS
OVE
RLOA
D ND
DIF
FERE
NTIA
L RE
PORT
ING
W
orkin
g P
aper
84
-111
by
N C
Ch
urc
hill
and
M
F.
v
an Br
eda
N C.
Ch
urc
hill
Dist
ingu
is he
d Pro
fess
or of
Acco
unti
ng
Di
rect
or, Ca
ruth
ns
ti tu
te of O
wner
M an
aged
Bus
in es
s
Edw i
n L.
Co
x
Sch
oolof B
usin
ess
S
ou th
ern
Met
hodi
st
Univ
ersi
ty
Da
llas
, Texa
s 752
75
M
F
. va
n Bred
a
Ass
ocia
te Pro
fess
or
of
Acco
unti
ng
Edwi
n L .
C
ox
Sch
oolof B
usin
ess
South ern Methodist
University
Dal
las, T
exa
s 7527
5
This
p
aper
rep
rese
nts a
dr
aft of
w o
rk
in
prog
ress
b
y
th
e
a
uth
ors
and
i s
bein
g
se
nt t
o you
f
or
infor
mat
io nan
d
r
evie
w.
Re
spo
nsib
ility
for t
he c
onte
nts
re
sts
so
le ly
wi
th
the
a
utho
rs. T
his w
ork
ing pa
per
may
not be
rep
rodu
ce d
o
r d is
tr i -
b
ute d
w
itho
ut
the w r
itte
n co
nsen
t
of
th
e a
utho
rs. P
lea
seadd
ress
a l l
co
rres
pon
denc
e to
N
C C
hur
chill
or M
F
van
Bred
a.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
3/28
Standard
s Overload
and
Diff
erential
Reportin
g
Pu
blic accounta
nts and m n
gers of small
and private
busines
ses
h ve co m
-
plained
tha t
the standards
set
by
the
FASB
(a)
a
re und
uly burdenso
m e
for
them
to meet, an
d
(b) yi
eld
r
elat ively
minimal
benefits t
o users of
repor
ts
o
n
sm
all and
priv
ate
businesses.
Users of
these
r
eports,
on
the
other h
and, appear
reluctant
to see the stan-
dards
rel
axed in
ny w
ay The debate
on
sta
ndard ove
rload has
reached some-
wh
t of an impass
e theref
ore.
This
r t ic le suggests that
i t m
ight be possible
to esc a
pe
th is
impas
se
i f th epart ies
to
the
debate:
(1)
would different ia t
e carefu
lly between
(a) fo
rms of disc
losure,
(
b)
al tern
at ive
me sure
ment
bases,
and
(
c) levels
of
a
ttes tat ion,
(2
)
would
focus on
the diffe
rent ty
pes of i
nformation that
various
users
alreadyposs
ess abo
ut
the re
porting
company
which theyob
tain
ind
ependently
of
a
regulated
accounting
report,
and
(3) w o
uld
con
sider the
relat ionship
s between the
us
ers
o
f financia
l
i
n -
formatio
n
and
the
reportin
g co mpa
ny
rather
than the
size of
t
he comp
any or
whether
i t is public
or
privat
e.
The f i r s t
section of
t
he
paper
pr
ovides
a background
to
t
he
complaints
about
standa
rds
overload.
The second
section deve
lops th e
concept ofmargina
l
demand fo
r regulated
accoun
ting i
nformation
and suggests t
hat
t
h is ma
rginal
demand varies
with the d
istance of
a user fr
om t ~ reporting
compan
y The
balance
of the
paper expl
ores how these
two conc
epts mi
ght form
the
basis
of a
new ap pr
oach to standards
overload.
The r t icle
co nc
ludes with a poss
ible
soluti
on to the
problem but
one that requir
esad
ditional empirical
resea
rch.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
4/28
BACKGRO
UND
T
he AICPA
In
1974
the AICPA, in response
to
num erous
complain t
s
th
at accounti
ng
pronounce
ments w ere i
mposing a standard
s overload
on many
compani
es,
crea
ted
the W
erner Com m it
tee on
G
enerally
Accepted
Accounting Prin
ciples for Smaller
and/or Clos
ely-Held
Businesses.
Thi
s c
ommittee in
i
t s
1976 report
recommended
th
e
inst i tu
t ion
of reviews
and compilations
by
acco
untants as
analternativ
e
t
o the stand
ard
audit.
The Derieux
C om m
ittee on Small-
and M ed
ium-Sized Firms
which followe
d in
1978 recom
mended the appoi
ntment of
a
spec
ial comm
ittee to
s
tudy alternativ
e
mean
s
of pro
viding re l ie
f fr
om
accou
nting
standards wh
ich are no t
cos
t effec
tive
for sm
all bu
sinesses .
The
re
sul t
was the Scott
C o mm ittee
on Accountin
g
St
andards
Overload which
by 19
83 was convinced
by a l
l the
evid e
nce co
nsidered
that accounting
standar
ds overload
i s a major
problem
a
nd
that i
ts b
urden
fa l l s
dispropo
rtionately
on small, non
public b
usinesses a
nd
the
CPAs who serve
them.
They concluded
,
inter a lia that
to th
e extent that simp
licity
and
flex
ib i l i
ty is not feasible
d
ifferen ti l
disc
losure altern
atives (base
d on the
cri te
r ia
in
the
Wern er C o
mmit tee Report) as
well as diff
erentia l
m easure
men t
alternativ e
s
be
consid
ered.
The C o
mmi t t ee also
referre
d account
ants back to
the erner Committe
e' s solution
not
ing
that
small, nonpublic
en
titie s c
an
gain
some
m
easure of re l
ie f
f rom
acc
ounting
sta ndard
s
overload
by issuing
com
piled ,
reviewed
, or au
dited finan
cial statem
ents prepared
on a
comprehen
sive
bas
is of acco
un ting other
than GAAP
in
a
ccordance wit
h
e
xisting
dis
closure and
measure
ment standards
and wi
th
t
he existin
g reporti
ng requiremen
ts for CP
As.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
5/28
3
T
wo
basic
f
actors em e
rge from
this br
ief
introdu
ction.
F i
rs t
accoun
tant
s are aware
that th
e
prob
lem
of standards
overload
wil l have to be
ad
dresse
d
thro
ugh differen
tial
at testa t ion
as well
as differen
tia l disc
losure
and measurement.
The
f i rs t
re sponse of
the
AICPA
in
fact
was
not
to
define
what should b
e disclosed
o
r
to
dictate ow
i t
sho
uld e
measured but
to enab
le
accoun
tants to
provide
u
sers wit
h
vary
ing
le
vels
of assuran
ce
about
t
he fa i r -
n
ess of the in
formation. I t
i s not clea
r
th o
ugh th
at users
understand how
th
ese
th
ree approaches
in terr
elate .
S
econd
i t is app
arent
ju
s t f rom th
e nam es
of
t
he committee
s tha
t s tan
dards ov
erload
has
been associated
with cer
tain types o
f
compan
ies;
specif i
cal ly private
companies
closely-held
companies
and
small companies. Th
e
conclusio
ns of s
uccessive comm
ittees reinforce
this
pe
rception. By
cont
rast
re la t ively
l i t t l e
has
been said about
how
users
their character
ist ics and
th
eir
need
for inform
ation d
iffer except by
implic
ation.
The
FASB
In
November
19
81
the
FASB
i
nst i tuted a su r
vey en title
d
Fi
nancial
Report
ing by Priv
ately Owne
d C om panies : Prac
tices
and V iews
as a par t ia
l response
to the
conclusio
ns of these vari
ous AICPA committ
ees.
One major
resul t to
emerge was
evidence
of a
conflict of views
between
users and ac
countants.
A
majo
rity of the
343 pu
blic
accountan
ts who responded
f
el t that there
was in d
eed a stan
dards ov erlo
ad that adv
ersely affect
ed the small
and
priv
ate
company .
Th
is cor
responds wit
h the con
victions
of the Scott C o mm
ittee of
course.
A
si
zeable
majori
ty of the 193
non-manager
users
of
fina
ncial
informa
tion
w
ho responde
d were against
any fo rm
of alte
rnat ive
di
sclosure.
These
users
indicat
ed that the
types of dec
isions that
they took and
the kin
ds of
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
6/28
4
in f
ormat
ion
that they
u
sed in
the
se deci
sions w
ereun
aff ecte
d by
th esi
zeof
the
co mp
any or
by t
he
n
ature
of
thei
r
hold
ings
in t
he
compan
y, i an
y.
Th
e 283
man
agers who
re spon
ded expr
essed
less
di
ssatis
factio
n
t
han
pub-
l i c
acco
untant
s regar
ding sta
ndards
overlo
ad
but
a signif
icant
mino
rit y
h d
reser
vation
s abou
t
pres
ent
ru
les
for
ac
counti
ng fo
r lea
ses
nd tax
es.
Th
e acc
ountan
ts and
theu
sers clearl
y diffe
red
i
n the
ir
op
inions
a
nd ma
n-
ager
s we
re somew
here in
the m
id dle.
Acarefu
l rea
ding
of
th e
s
urvey
yie
lds
,
other
conf
licts
n
d qu
estion
s. F irst
to
what
exten
t are
use
rs
op
posed to
chan
ges
in disclo
sure
rules
, in
measu
rement
ru l
es ,
in
levels
o
f at tes
ta t ion
,
or in
a ll
th ree?
Do
the y
even
understand
the
difference
between
the
three
concep
ts ? Fo
r e
xampl
e,
we
are
to
ld
in
the su r
vey:
U
sers
belie
ve that
fina
ncial
inform
atio n
has
gre
ater r
e l iab i
l i ty
in
mos
t
sit
uat ion
s be
cause
of
a pu
blic ac
count
ant's as
sociat
ion
with th
e fi
nan-
c ia
l st
ateme
nts
(FASB
, p. 1
2). A
ttesta
tion rathe
r
than
discl
osure
ap pear
s
to
be
the issue
h
ere.
So
me le
nders
accep
t less
f i
nanci
al
in
forma
tion fr
om a sm
aller
co mp
any
th
an from
a larg
er one
,
partic
ularly
i f the
com
pany n
d i t s
o w ne
rs are f
inan-
c
ial ly
stro
ng
(FAS
B,
p
. 12)
.
In othe
r words
, the
r
e l iab i
l i ty
of finan
cial
sta
temen
ts
ap
pears to
be le
ss im
portan
t
whe n
the rep
orting
pa
rties
ar
e them-
selve
s
relia
ble .
A
lmo st
[no use
rs] we
re cr i t
ica l
ofspec i
fic
m ea
surem e
nt or
disclo
sure
re q
uirem
ents. In
stead,
the
us
ers focuse
d
their
dissat
isfact
iono
n the leve
l
of
CP
involvement
Many
of
the
m urged
requ
iring
a min
imum
l
evel
of r
eview
by
ou
tside
CP s to
in
creas
e re l
iabi l i
ty . . . .
(FASB
,
p.
17
). Agai
nat te
s ta t io
n
rath
er th a
n disclo
sure appe
ars
to
be
the
un
derlyi
ng c
ause
for conce
rn.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
7/28
* o
llow
up
withsele
cted
lender
s ind
icated
that
not l
llend
ers un
de
rstood
t
hat 'acco
unt
for ' w
as intend
ed
toem b
race
the po
ssibi l
ity
of d iffe
r
e
ntm
easur
ements
as
well as
dis
closur
es
FA SB,
p. 1
4).
A
secon d
poin
t
is
tha
t, i
n sp it
e of
theappare
nt c
onfusi
on
at the con
cept
ual le
vel, i t
appea
rs th
at
at the p
ractic
al
le
vel
som
e u
sers ar
e m akin
g
defin
ite cost-b
enefit
trad
e-offs
bet
ween t
he three
con
cepts.
Ba
nks, for
in
st
ance,
rep
ort
that w
hi le
th ey
have the
bi l i ty
to
obta
ini
nform
ation from
a
borro
wer
apa
rt f rom
fina
ncial
statem
ents
t
hey pr
efer
to o
btain m
ost f i -
nan
cial
in for
mation
from
financ
ial sta
temen
ts F
ASB,
p.
11). Th
is i s
ha
rdly
surprising
because annual
reports are free to users.
Summ
ing u
p, th
e su rve
y reve
aled
that th
ere
are , on t
he o n
e han
d,
users
receiv
ing
inform
ation
as a fre
e g
ood w
ho do
not
see th
e need
for
d
iffe r
ent ial
st
andard
s
b
ased o
n co m
pany c
harac
terist i
cs. T
hey also
do
no
t a
pp ear
to
dis
tingu
ish
clear
ly
betw
een
dis
closur
e,
me
asurem
ent, an d
att
esta ti
on. T
here are
,
o
n the oth
er ha
nd, a
ccoun
ting fir
ms wh
o app
ear
to
be expe
riencin
g very
rea
l
sta
ndard
s overl o
ad. A
nd in
betw
een is a
m anag
ement w
ho wer
e abou
t equ
ally
div
ided rega
rding
the
desir
abi li t
y ofdi
fferen
t stan
dards
.
The
F
ERF
Mo
re recen
tly t
he
Financ
ialExecu
tives
Resear
ch Fou
ndatio
n has
p
ublish
ed
the re
sults
of i t s own
su
rvey
enti
t led F
inanc
ial Repor
ting
Requ
iremen
ts o
f
Sm
all Pu
blicly
Owned
Compa
nies. The
co
nclusio
ns
of th i
s stud
y,
w
hich de
lib
erat
ely exclu
ded
pri
vate co
m p an ie
s from
i t s pur
view,
ar
e gene
rally s
uppor
ti ve
o
f
the
positi
ons rea
ched
y t
he FA
SB
althou
gh the
FERF
doe
s carry
the
se
con
clu
sions
furthe
r w
th resp
ect
to
diffe
ren tia
l
r
eporti
ng.
T he F
ERF sur
vey cl
early
shows
tha
t
m anage
ment a
ssocia
tes G
AAP
wit h m e
a-
sure
ment an
d,
les
s
cle
arly,
with
att
es ta ti
on . Th
ey pe
rceive
m easu
rem e n t
to
be
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
8/28
th
e bailiw
ick of account
ants, to involve
pr
imarily techn
ical
issue
s,
and man-
gement wa
nts no ch nge in
this a
rea. On wh t
basis they reach th
is co n
clu-
sion is
unclear
sin
ce they c
laimno
tec
hnical co
mpetence in accounting
mea-
su
rement.)
Disclos
ure
is
perceived
to
be
dist
inc t
f rom G P a
nd to
af
fect
the
m anage
ment
o
f the firm
more dir
ect ly especially
w
hen i t impacts
nega
tively
o
n the i r
own compan
y.
Differ
ent ial disc
losure, espe
cially
in areas
such as
segm
ent reporting
, deferred
taxes,
and
capita
lized lease
s, unli
ke differe
ntia l
measuremen
t, is supported
by the majority
of responden
ts.
US
ERDIST N
CE
T
he
prima
ry focus o
f the overlo
ad deba
te,
thu
s
far , has been
on
the
typ
e
o
f comp nie
s
in
volved.
I t s quite
plausibl
e,
th
ough,
t
hat
wh t
is
i
mportant
are the
re
lationships
betw
een th
e
people
wh
o
rely
on financial i
nformation
to
make de
cisions nd th e
company
o
f in
terest .
In
deed,
as wil l
be show
n,
t
hese
rela tionsh
ips are
vi ta l to an understan
ding of
standa
rds
overlo
ad.
The f i r s t factor
to n
ote is
that
users vary widely
in their
involveme
nt
in the
affair
s
of
a comp
any and on a t leas
t two
dimen
sions:
(1)
the frequency
of inte
ract ion
howoften
the
ind
ividual
in
teracts
with
th e c
ompany daily
,
w
eekly,
monthly
?
(2)
th e
scope of interact
ion i
s i t broa
d nd
d
eep l i
ke
that o
f
a chief
execu
tive office
r
o
r re la t iv
ely narrow
and shallow
l ike that
of
n em pl
oyee on
the producti
on l ine?
Define
then
a
user to
be
close
to
a compa ny when
the
user's
involvement
w
ith
the co mpany
is frequent
and
dee
p. Conversely,
d
efine a
user to be dis-
tant wh
en the
i
nteract ion
is
infre
quent,
is
sha
llow, or
is
bot
h. This
con-
cept
o
f distanc
e,
a
s wil
l be s
hown,
e
nables
one to predic
t
both
the
nature of
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
9/28
7
the information a user might
require
and the intensi ty of the demand for
that
information.
INFORM TION V IL BILITY
Distance affects information
availabil i ty . Typically when accountants
think of
information
they think
primarily
of the transaction information
that
is collected,
processed,
aggregated, and distributed by the accounting
system.
This f i r s t
type
of
information
is available in raw form to a number of em-
ployees in management and
in
accounting. I t is available as one moves up
the
hierarchy
in
increasingly
more and more summarized form
to
management
as
bud-
gets , forecasts , cost reports , and product
l ine
prof i tabi l i ty reports. A for-
mal,
highly aggregated
version of this transaction
information goes to
share-
holders
and other outside users at
set periods
of time in the form of quar-
te r ly and annual financial reports.
There are numerous other sources of
information
available in and about
organizations, though. One source of
information
is user involvement with the
affairs
of
a company For
example,
a warehouse clerk
learns
about the company
from
booking
del iver ies ,
a banker from
i t s
flow
of deposits
and
withdrawals,
and a
creditor
from the speed with which
payables
are
paid.
Such information
might be
labeled interaction information.
This second type of
information
is
the
most direct and is sometimes called
firsthand
information. This is the
target information for management
i t se l f
A
thi rd
kind of
information,
often called
indirect
or
secondhand
informa-
t ion, flows in a relat ively informal
way to
certain users. At luncheon or
the
country
club, the owner of a company and i t s banker and lawyer, and
people
who
do
business
with i t discuss economic
matters
and the
business.
Through
this
process,
these outsiders
are
able to
f i l l in a
picture
both of the
business
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
10/28
and
ow
ner/manager
who ofte
n guara n
tees
t
he lo
ans.
This
m
ight be more true of
s
mall ba
nks in sma
ll tow n
s
than
large
banks in l
arge town
s.
Yet
even in
the
la t ter , clu
bs,
associati
ons,
and profess
ional meetin
gs, are part
of a
network
of
re l
ationsh ips
whic
h have an
informati
on
dim
ension.
The abov
ementioned indirect
inform
ation fl ows
directly fro
m
the
organiza
t io
n
o
utwards.
T
here
are
a n
umber
of
sources,
though, whic
hare indepen
dent
of the
organizatio
n. Thes
e
secondar
y sources
in c
lude
bro ke
rage houses,
business
an
alysts ,
banks,
mer
ger specialis
ts , and th e l ike - -
organizatio
ns
which
have
g
reat expertise in
p
articula r
ind
ustries
an
d
play
a
key
role
in
collec ting
seemingly
unrelated
b its
of
information
and
disseminating
them
in
a
coherent
and use
ful form Informa
tion
must theref
ore be
re c
ognized
as c
oming
fro
m many
sou
rces
and
v
arying widely
in the
directness of
the p
ath i t takes
.
User
distance cle
arly affects info
rmation
availabi l i t
y . T
he
clo
se user
i s by definit io n
invo
lved with
the co mpany
on a regular
and deep b
asis and is
th ereby
deriving
a
gre
at deal of firstha
nd,
interaction
know ledg
e
abo
ut the
com pany
In many cases that
sa
me close
u
ser
wil l
also
be in
pos
session of
re l
a tively
disaggrega
ted reports
and be
gett
ing se
condhand inform
ation
from
manageme
nt
- - i f th
ey are
not manag
ers themsel
ves.
C
onversely,
those
who are
not
in volved in
the
aff
a i r s of
the
business or
are not dea
ling
wit
h the
compa-
ny
on a
day-
to-day
basis wi
ll (a) receive l
ess infor
mation, (b) rece
ive less
detailed
informa
tion, and
(c)
re
ceive i t
less fre
quently .
INFO
RM TION
RELI B
ILITY
Information
availab
ili ty is c
losely
re
lated
to informati
on redundan
cy
which migh
t be
de
fined as the
availabi l i t
y
o
f the
same informati
on f
rom two or
m o
re
sou
rces.
A t f i r s t glance,
red
undancy w ould appear
to be
was
teful of
so
cie ty s
res
ources. On
th
e other hand, s
ources of informa
tion ca
n, and do,
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
11/28
9
fa i l and society has an interes t in
ensuring
the flow of
information even at
the expense of
redundancy.
Redundancy in other words
helps
ensure
information re l iabi l i ty
to a
user. One of the roles of auditing
is to enhance the
performance of
the
for
mal financial
information
system. To
the extent
that a user
receives
finan
cial
information
from a variety of
sources this
role might not be as neces
sary.
There
are
many
banks who
have told
selected clients
that a
ful l
audit
is unnecessary because they
possess suff icient information
about
the
company
from
other
sources. The F SB survey provided further evidence of
this
prac
t ice .
Audited reports
are necessary for
those users who are
essent ial ly
depen
dent on a single source for their
information
about the company Such users
are by
defini t ion
distant from the company Close users by contrast have
a
wide
variety
of information sources at their
disposal and
might feel
the
costs of a ful l audit to exceed the costs. In
short distance affects the
perception
a
user has
of
the re l iabi l i ty of information.
DECISIONS
I t also appears possible for distance to affect the nature
of
decisions
that users take and thereby their
overall
requirements for information. Note
f i r s t that information is valuable only because i t can be used to improve
decisions. I t is important therefore to examine
information
in the
l ight
of
the decision
which
i t
attempts
to
support.
Numerous
types of
decisions are
made daily of course but they may al l be usefully categorized for
the
pur
poses of
this
discussion in terms of their frequency.
At the one end of the spectrum
are decisions
that are taken
infrequently.
These
often
involve
broad and
usually
long-range issues and
are
sometimes
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
12/28
1
described
as s tra tegic
decisions. E x
amp l e s
of such
dec
isions on the
part of a
.user m
ight
in
clude
buyi
ng
o
r sell in g
sto
ck in a partic
ular company
or making a
major
loan
to
such
a compan
y. At the
other extreme
there
are decisi
ons
r
e-
la t ing
to
a company
that
a
user
might
make
frequently.
The
decision
of
a
sup-
pl ier to make an
other sal
e to
th
e
reporting
compan
y on credit
migh
t
e an
ex-
m
ple of a
decision
that
is taken
freq
uently.
Frequently made d
ecisions
typically
concern
sm
all s
egments of a c
om pany
and
g
enerally require
info
rmation that
is
v
ery
current rathe
r
de
tailed a
l -
though not prec
isely
accurate. Such
inform
ation by
i
t s
nature
cannot be au-
di ted.
Less
frequent decis
ions
generally r
equire
le
ss detailed
an d less f re -
quent inf
ormation
but informa
tion that i
s
b
roader and
o
ften
more
accu
rate.
In
short
d ifferent type
s
of
de
cisions requir
e
differe
nt ty pes
o
f info
rmation an d
d
ifferent
levels of a tte
s ta t ion.
By de
fin it ion a user
w
ho is
taking frequen
t decis
ions
re
lated
to a com-
pany
i s
or
should
be
a
close user.
By
contrast
t
he
us
er who
only takes in
-
frequent
decisions r
elated t
o
a com
pany
such as the d
ecision to se l l
i t s
stock is a
re la t ivel
y
distant
user. Of
co
urse close
users
als
o
take i
n r -
qu
ent
deci
sions; distant us
ers though r
arely take fre
quent
decisions
.
I t
appears the
refore that
the
nature
of
deci
sions that various
users take
usu-
ally re
la tes to their di
stance f r o m th e
company.
IM
PLIC TIONS
Several things
flow
from
the
observations
bove and
specif ically
f r o m
the
concept of
user distan
ce and
i t s
rel
ationship
to informa
tion ava i l
ab il i ty and
decisi
on chac terist i
cs.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
13/28
Marginal
emand
The impact of
user
distance f i rs t on information availabil i ty and second
on the nature of decision taken can be combined to show that the marginal
de-
mand for mandated accounting
information
relat ive
to
a given
decision
and for
at testat ion
of
that
information
must
vary with
distance
too.
1)
Distant
users
rarely make the
sort
of
frequent decisions
about a com-
pany that
close
users
do. Hence,
they
have
l i t t l e
requirement for
information
sui table
for
making these
frequent
decisions.
On
the other hand, they are
in-
volved in the less
frequent,
s trategic
type
decisions, but since they are dis-
tant
they
do
not
have an abundance
of information
at
their
disposal
from
in-
formal sources. Thus, one might expect a high demand for mandated and a t tes t
ed information suitable for their decisions - - and this is a
role
formal ac-
counting information can
fulf i l .
2) Close users
make a greater number and a greater variety
of decisions
than
distant
users but possess
significant
amounts
of
suitable
information
from
a
variety of sources.
Thus,
their
marginal demand for mandated
account-
ing information
can
be expected to be
quite
low for
a l l
types of decisions.
In
short,
i f the above
analysis
is
correct,
the
only
demand
for
mandated
accounting information
should
come from distant users and the
only type
of
accounting information
demanded
wil l
be that supporting infrequent decisions
such as major loans to companies, or the purchase or sale
of stock
shares. A
corollary to this is that the strongest demand for audited
information
will
come from
distant
users. The FASB s survey and that of
the
FERF provide
evi-
dence supporting a l l
these
points.
Relationships
Specific company
character is t ics
may
now
be seen to be largely i r re le
vant.
Close
users of
a l l types
have
a low marginal demand for mandated
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
14/28
12
accounting
information, while distant users of a l l types have a potentially
high
demand
for
mandated accounting
information
related
to
the sorts
of
deci-
sions taken infrequently and a low marginal demand
for
accounting
information
suitable
for decisions
taken
more
frequently.
The
arguments
of
the
previous
section that
the
marginal demand
for
accounting
information
is a function of
the distance
of
a user from the reporting company
applies
to any company re-
gardless of i t s size
or
complexity. In part icular , therefore, i t is most mis-
leading to speak of a possible
solution
to standards overload in terms of com-
pany size implied
in
the expression big
GAAP
versus l i t t l e GAAP.
Equally, the
nature of the user is i rre levant . For instance, a bank in a
small
town
who carries the
accounts
of
both the
reporting
company
and i t s
own-
er who
is familiar
with the
product
or services
of
the company and who might
be
familiar
with
many of i t s customers,
is a close user. That same bank car-
rying the accounts
of
nonresidents, who maintain their personal accounts else-
where, and whose products
are sold
out of town, is a distant user.
The question i s one of relationships. I t i s the network
of relationships
that
exist
between a reporting company and the user that determines the user 's
distance. This is a concept
that
appears
to
be completely new
to
the debate
on
accounting
standards overload but one that can
lead
to an objective way of
examining the need and desirabil i ty
for
different reporting
requirements.
A PROGRAM
The
preceding
analysis
of
relationships
suggests
a
possible
program
for
the solution of standards overload:
The f i r s t step would be a careful study of user requirements which might
reveal that some accounting disclosure standards can be simplified
for
al l
companies
because those users who
do
desire
this information already
have
i t
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
15/28
or have
easy
access to i t while a l l other users do not require i t
at
a l l .
Such studies
could
lead
to the simplification
of
disclosure and measurement
rules .
13
The
second
step
would
involve
research
into
user
benefits
and
producer
costs
and might further reveal that the present
single,
all-purpose report
is
not suitable for any of the classes of users - - specif ical ly
i t
may be
margin
al ly effect ive
in
ful f i l l ing the requirements of the distant user
and quite
ineffic ient in serving the needs
of
the close
user.
A
thi rd
step would involve finding circumstances where differentia l
ru les ,
available to al l companies, regardless
of
their
size
or
ownership,
would be dependent only on
the various
relationships
the
company has with dif
ferent classes of users. These
rules
would
differentia te
between levels
of
disclosure, measurement, and attestation. The
ICP
has
already permitted
differention in attes ta t ion
with
the
creation
of compilations
and
reviews
alongside the audited report . The F SB
has
set precedents for different iat ion
in disclosure and measurement
in
the areas of segment and inflation accounting
among others. Why not extend this on a more systematic basis?
The FASB s survey gives some preliminary evidence that
different iat ion
based on relationships is already occurring informally since the
majority
of
the small banks who responded do think that small companies can report differ
ent ly
without reducing the usefulness
of their
financial
statements to
the
bank concerned (FASB, p. 14). This was not true
of the responses
of
large
banks
- -
which
tends
to
suggest the
concept
of
distance
is
already
at
work.
The FERF s survey
provides
additional evidence since small public companies
and
small private companies were found
to
differ in
their beliefs regarding
standards
overload.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
16/28
14
The intent of
this
paper, though, is
not to
suggest a
specific
solution
to standards overload but
to
outline a conceptual framework within which a
solution
might
be achieved.
In part icular , i the
analysis has been correct,
further
debate
on
the
issue that
is
based
on company
characteris t ics ,
such as
th i r being
small
or closely held,
i s
doomed to failure.
Instead the
debate
must
shi f t
to
consider
a)
the value of additional information to users
and
b) the value of
attes ted
information to
users,
in the
l ight
of the relat ion-
ships that
exist between
them and the
reporting
company In
short ,
in
l ight
of
their distances from the company
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
17/28
15
SELECTED BIBLIO
GRAPHY
Alderman,
C. W
ay ne, Dan M. Gu
y and
Dennis R.
Meals,
Other
C
om prehensive
Bases
of Acco
unting: A
lternatives
to
GA
AP? Jo
urnal ofA
ccountancy (Au
gust
1982), PP
52-62.
And
erson,
D
on ald T.,
Haro
ld
I D y c
us, and
Robert B. Welke
r, GAAS and t
he
Smal
l
Business
Au
dit,
Th
e CPA Jo
urnal (Apri
l 1982),
pp. 10-12.
C h azen ,
Charles and
Ben jamin
Benson
,
F
ittingG
P to
Sma
ller Busines
ses,
Journal
of Accoun
tancy
(
February
1978),
pp.
4
6-51.
E
paves, Richard
A., An
Alternat
ive to L ittle
GAAP, Pra
cti t ioners
Forum,
Journal of A
ccountancy Novem
ber 1978),
pp. 36-43.
Financ
ial Account
ing
Standar
ds B o ard
FASB), Fin
ancial Repor
ting by Priv
ately
Owned C ompanies :
Practice
s
a
nd View
s, Stamford,
t i c u t t 1983
F
inancial Execut
ives Research
Foundation FE
R F), Fina
ncial Reporting
Require
ments of
Small Publicly
Owned C om
pan ies , 1984
Hepp , G
erald W. a
nd Thomas w
McRae,
Acco
unting
Standar
ds
Overload: R
elief
Is
Neede
d,
Jour
nal ofAcc
ountancy (May
1982),
pp.
5
2-62.
Ke
lley, Thomas
P.,
Accounti
ng
Standards O
verload--
Time f
or Action, Th
e CPA
Journ
al (Ma
y 1982), pp.
10-17.
K orn
D.
H.,
Small Public
Companie
s: Do They H
av e
Different Reporting
Needs
?
F
inancial Executive,
(August 1984
) pp. 37-42
.
Lippitt,
J W
and
B.L.
Oliver,
Big
G aap ,
Lit t le
G aap:
Financial
Rep orts
in
the S
mall Business
Environ
ment, Jou
rnal of Small B
usiness Manage
m ent,
(July 1983) P
P 52-57
.
S
tanger, Abraham
M. and Samu
el
P.
Gun
ther, B
ig G P Lit t le GAAP :
S
hould
There
Be
Di
fferent Financial Rep ort
ing
for Small Busi
ness?
New Y ork
University
Law R eview N
ovember-Dece
m ber 198
1), pp. 12
09-1235.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
18/28
The f
ollowing p
apers are current
ly available
in
the
Ed
win L. Cox
Sch
ool
of
Busin
ess Wo rk i
ng Paper Seri
es.
79-100
Microd
ata File
Mergi
ng
T h ro u
g h Large-
ScaleNetwork
Tec hno
logy, y
Richard
S . Barr
and J . Sc
ott
Turne
r
79-10
1
Pe
rceived En
vironmental
Uncertain
ty: An Individu
al or
Environmenta
l
Attribute,
y
Peter
Lorenzi,
H en ry
P.
Sims,
J r . an d
John
W.
S locum,
Jr .
79-10
3 A T y p o l
og y
for
Integra
ting
Technolo
gy,
Org
anization an
d Job Design,
y
Jo
hn
W Sloc
um , J r . anc
i H en ry P.
Sims,
Jr .
80
-100 Implement
ing the Portfo
lio
(SBU)
Concept,
by Rich
ardA. Bett i
s and
William
K. Hall
80-101
Asses
sing Organi
zational Change
App
roaches: Towards a
Comparative
Typology,
y
Don Hellriegel
and Joh
n W
.
Slocum,
J
r .
80-102
Cons
tructing a
Theory of A
ccounting--A
n Axiomati
c Approach, y
Marvin L .
Carlson
an d James
W.
Lamb
80-1
03 Mentors
& Ma
nagers, by
Michael E.
McGill
80-
104 Budg
eting Ca
pital for
R&
D:
An Appl
ication of O
ption
Pr
icing, y
John
W.
Ke
nsinger
80
-200 Finan
cial
Ter
ms of Sale
andControl
of Mark
eting Channel Con
flict,
y M
ichael
L
evy an d D w i
gh t Grant
80-30
0
Toward
An
Optimal
C
ustomer
Service Package,
by
Michael
Levy
80-301 Controlling
the P
erformance
of
Peop
le_
i
n Or
ganizations,
by Stev
en
Kerr
and
John
W
Slocu m ,
Jr .
80-400
T he
Effects of Ra
cial Co
mposition onNeighborho
od Success
io n, by
Kerry
D.
Vandell
8
0-500 Strategies
of G r
ow th : Form
s , Characteris
tics and
Returns,
y
Ri
chard D.
Miller
80-600
O
rganization
Roles
, Cognitive R
oles, and P
roblem-Solvi
ng
S
tyles,
by
Ric
ha rd Lee S
teckroth,
John W
.
Slocum
, J r .
and
H
enry P. S im
s, J
r .
80-
601 New
Efficient Equation
s to Co
mpute
tlte Present Valu
e of Mo rtg ag e
Inter
est
P
aym ents
and Acce
lerated Dep
reciation Tax Bene
fits , y
E
lbert B. Grey
nolds, J r
.
80-800 Mortgage
Quality
and
theTwo-Earne
r
Family: Issues and
Estimat
es,
by Ker
ry D.
Va
ndell
80-80
1 C
omparison of t
he
EEO
CC
Four-Fifth
sRule
an d
A One,
Two or
Three
B
inomial Criter
ion,
by
:t-1arion
Gross Sob
ol an d
P
aul
Ellar
d
80-9
00
Bank
Portfoli
o
M
anagement: T
he Role of F
inancial
Future
s,
y
D
w ight M.
Grant an d G eo rg
e Hempel
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
19/28
80-902
Hedgin
g Unce
rtain Foreign Exchan
ge
Posit ion
s,
by
Mark
R. Eaker and
Dwigh t
M. Gra
nt
80-110 Strat
egic
Port fol
io
M anagement
in
the
Multibu
siness
Firm
: An
Imple
mentation Status Re
port,
by Rich
ard A. Bettis and W
illiamK.
Hall
80-111
Sourc
es
of Perfo
rmance
Differences
in Related an
d Unrela
ted
Dive
rsi
f ied Firm
s,
b
y Richar
d
A.
Bett is
80-112 The
Inform
ation
N e
eds o
f Bus
iness
With
Special
A
pplica tion to
Managerial De
cision
Ma
king, by
Paul Gray
80-11
3
Diversi
fication Strategy, Ac
counting Determ
ined
Risk, and Accounti
ng
Dete
rmined
Return,
by Richard
A.
Bett i
s
and
William K
.
Ha
ll
80-1
14 Tow
ard Ana
lytically Prec
ise Defi
nitions of M
arket Value and
Highes
t
and Best U
se, by Kerry D.
Va
ndell
80-115 Perso
n-Situation
Interactio
n:
An Expl
oration of C o
m pet ing Mod
els
of
Fit ,
by William
F. Joyce, John
W. Slocum,
J r . , and Mary
Ann
Von
G linow
80-116 Corre
lates of
Climate
Discrepancy
,
by
William F.
Joyceand John
Slocum
80-117
Alternative
Perspe
ctives
on
Neighborh
ood D
ecline, by
Arthu
r
P.
Solomon
and Kerry
D
Vandell
80-
121
ProjectAbandonm
ent as a
Put O
ption: D
ealing
wit
h the Capital
Investmen
t
Decis
ion and Ope
rating Risk
Using
O
ption Pricing T
heory,
by
John
W. Kensinger
80-122 The
Interrela
tionships Betwee
n Bank
ing Re
turns
and Risk
s, by G e
orge
H
Hempel
80-123
The
Environment
F
or
F
unds Managem
en t D
ecisions In Coming
Year
s,
by
G eorge
H
H
em pel
81-100
A
Test
of
Gouldn
er's Norm of Re
ciprocity
in
a
C ommerc ia l
Marketing
Researc
h Setting , by Roge
r Ke
rin,
Tho
mas
Barry, and Al
an
D u
binsky
81-200 ' 'So
lution
St
rategies and Algo
rithm Behavio
r in Large-
Scale Network
Codes, by
RichardS. B
arr
81-201 T h
e S U
DecisionRoom
Project, by
PaulG
ray, Julius Aronofs
ky,
Nancy
W. B
erry, OlafHelm
er, Ge rald R. K
ane, and Tho
mas E.
Perkins
81-300
Cash Dis
counts t
o
R
etail
C
ustomers:
An Al
ternative
to Credit Card
Perfo
rm ance,
by
Michael Levy
and
Charles Ingene
81-400 M
erchandising
Decisions
:
A New
View of
Planning and
Measur
ing
Perfo
rmance,
b
y Michael Le
vy and
CharlesA. In
gene
81- 500
A Methodology
for the
Form
ulation and E
valuation of
Ene-
rg y
Goals
and Policy
Al
ternatives fo
r
Isra
el , by
Julius Aro
nofsky, Reuven
Karni, and Harry
Tan
kin
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
20/28
8
1-501
Job Rede
sign:
Im
provi
ng
the Q
uality
of
W ork
in g
Life ,
by John W
.
S
locu m,
Jr .
81-600
Man
ageria
l
Uncer
tainty
and Perform
ance,
by
H. K
irkD
owney a
nd
John
W.
Sloc
um ,
Jr .
8
1-601
Com
pensat
ing Ba
la nce,
Ratio
nality
, a
nd Opti
mality
, by C
hun
H. Lam
an
d Ken
neth J .
B
oudre
aux
81-7
00
Fe
deral Inc
om e Taxes,
Inf
lat ion
a
ndHoldin
g Per
iods for
I
n co m e
Pro
ducing
P
roper
ty,
by W
il liam
B. B ru
egg ema
n , Jeff
rey
D.
F
isher
,
a
nd
Je
rrold
J . S
tern
81-80
0
The Ch
inese-
U.S. S
ym posi
um On
Sys
temsAna
lysis,
by Pau
l G
ray and
Burt
on
V. D e
an
81-
801 T
he Sen
sitivi
ty of
Pol
icyEla
st ici t i
e s t
o the T
im e P
eriod
Examin
ed
in
the
S
t. L
ouis E
quatio
nand
Other
Tests
, b
y
Fra
nk
J.
B
onello
and
Willi
am R.
Re
ichens
tein
81-900
Forecasting
Industria l
Bond
Rating
Changes: A
Multivariate
Model,
by J
ohn W.
Peav
y, I I I
81 - 1
10 Impr
oving
G
ap M an
agemen
t
a
s a
Techn
ique fo
r R
educin
g In
teres
t
Rate
Risk
, by
Donald
G
. Sim
onson
and
G e
o rge
H. Hem
pel
81
.-111
Th
e
Visi
ble
an
d Inv is
ible H
and: So
urce
Allo
cation
in
th
e Ind
ustria
l
S
ector,
b
y Ri
chard
A. Bet t
is
andC.
K. Pra
hala d
81-11
2 T he
Signi
ficanc
e of
Pri
ce-Ea
rnings
Rat
ios o
n Portfo
lio
Re
turns,
by
J
ohn W.
Peav
y,
I I I an
d D
avid A. G
oodman
81- 1
13 Fu
rther E
valuat
ion
of Fi
nancin
g
Co
sts
for M
ultin
ationa
l
Sub
sidiar
ies,
by
Catherine
J . B runo
and
M ark R.
Eaker
8
1-114
Seven
Key Rule
s for
Suc
cessfu
l St
ock
Marke
t Specu
lation,
by D
avid
Goodm
an
81-1
15 The
Pr
i
c
e-Earn
in gs R
elative
a
s anI
ndicat
or
of In
vestm
en t
Retu
rns,
by
Davi
d
ood
man
a
nd John
W.
Pea
vy, I
I I
81-11
6 Stra
tegic
M an
agemen
t
fo
r
Whol e
saler
s
:
An
Env
ironme
ntal
Mana
ge ment
Persp
ective
,
by W
illiam
L. C
ron an d
Val
arie A.
Zeith
aml
81
-117
Seq
uentia
l Infor
mation
D
issem
inat i
onand
Rela
tive
Marke
t
Ef
ficien
cy,
by Chr
istoph
er
B. Barry
and
Rober
t H. Jenn
ings
81
-118
Mod
eling Ear
nings
Beh
avior,
by Mich
ael F
. van
B
reda
8
1-119
T he
Dimen
sions
o
f S
elf-M
anagem
ent,
by D
av i d
oodman
an
d
L
eland
M.
W o
oton
81-120
T h
e Pr
ice-Earn
in
gs
Rel
ativ
e s
A New
Tw is t
t o th
e Lo
w
M
u l t
ip le S
t rat egy ,
byDavi
dA
. Goodma
n an
d John W.
Peavy
, I
I I
8
2-100
R
isk
C
onsid
eratio
ns in Mo
deling
Cor
porate
Strate
gy,
by
Ri chard
A
.
Bet
t is
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
21/28
8
2-101 Modern ,
Financial T
heory, Corpora
te Strategy,
and Public
Policy:
Three C on
und rums, by
Rich
ard A. Bettis
8
2-102
C
hildren's
Advertising:
The
Differentia
l Impactof
Appeal
S
trategy,
y Tho
mas E. Barry
and
R
ichard
F. Gunst
8
2-103 A T y p o lo g y
of Small Busine
sses: Hypoth
esis
and Prelim
inary
S
tudy,
y Neil
C. C
hurchilland
Virginia L. Lew
is
82-104
Imperfect Information,
Uncertainty,
an d
Credit
Rationing:
A
Comment
an d
Exte
nsion, y Kerry
D.
Vandell
82-200 Equi
librium in
a
Futures Mark
et, by Jero
m e Baesel
and Dwight
Grant
82-201
A Market
In
dex
Futures
Contract and Por
tfo lio Selection,
by
D
w ig ht
Gran
t
82-2
02
S
electing O
ptimal Portfol
ios with a
Futures
Market in a
Stock Index,
by
D w
ight Grant
82-203 Mar
ket
In dex
Fu
tures Contracts:
Some
Thoughts on D
elivery
Dates,
by D w ight Grant
82
-204 Optimal
Seque
ntial Futures Trad
ing, b
y Jerome
Baes
el
and D wight
Gr
ant
82-300 The Hypothe
sized Effe
cts of Abili
ty in
th
e Turnover
Process
,
y
Ellen
F.
Jacko
fsky an d L a
w ren ce H. Peters
82-301 Teaching
a F
inancial Planning
Languag
e as th
e
Principal
C om
puter
L anguage
for MBA's ,
y Thomas E.
Perkins
and Paul Gray
82-
302
P
ut Budgeting
Back In
to Capita
l
Bu
dgeting,
by Michael F
. van B
reda
82-
400 Informati
on
D
issemination
and Port
folio Choice
, y Robe
rt H. Jennin
gs
and C
hristopher
B. Bar ry
8
2-401 Reality
S hock: The Lin
k Between
Socializ
ation
and Org
anizational
C o m m
itm ent, y
R og er A. De
an
82-402 Reporting
on
the A nn u a l Repo
rt, y Gail
E. Farrel
ly an d Gai
l
B
.
lv
right
82-403
A
L
inguisticA
nalysis
ofAccounti
ng, by G
ail E. Farrelly
82-600 The
Relatio
nship B etw een Co
mputerizatio
n and Performan
ce: A
Strategy
for
Ma
ximizing the Econom
ic Ben
efits of
Co
mputerizatio
n,
by William
L . Cron and
Marion
G. Sobol
82-601 Optimal L
and Use Planni
ng, y Richar
d
B.
Peiser
8
2-602 Variances
an d
Ind
ices,
y Michael
F. va
n Breda
82-60
3 T he Pricing
of Small B
usiness Loans,
y Jonath
an A
.
Scott
82-
604 Collateral
Requirement
s and S
mall
Business
Loans, b
y
Jo
nathan A. Sco
tt
82-605 Va
lidationStrate
gies fo
r
Hultiple
Regressio
nAna
lysis: A Tutorial ,
by
Marion
G. Sobol
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
22/28
82-700
Credit Rationing
and
the Small
Business Counnunity,
by
Jonathan
A.
Scott
82-701
Bank
Structure
and
Small
Business Loan
Markets, by William C.
Dunkelberg
and
Jonathan
A.
Scott
82-800 Transportation
Evaluation in
Counnunity
Design: An Extension with
Equilibrium Route Assignment, by Richard B. Peiser
82-801
An Expanded Counnercial Paper Rating Scale: Classification of
Industr ia l Issuers ,
by
John
W.
Peavy,
I I I
and
S.
Michael
Edgar
82-802
Inflation, Risk,
and
Corporate
Profi tabi l i ty:
Effects
on Counnon
Stock
Returns, by
David
A. Goodman
and
John W. Peavy, I I I
82-803 Turnover
and
Job Performance: An Integrated Process Model, by
Ellen F.
Jackofsky
82-804
An Empirical Evaluation of Stat is t ical Matching
Methodologies, by
Richard
S. Barr,
William
H. Stewart,
and
John Scott
Turner
82-805
Residual
Income
Analysis:
A Method
of
Inventory
Investment
Alloca
t ion
and
Evaluation,
by Michael
Levy and
Charles A. Ingene
82-806
Analytical
Review Developments in Practice:
Misconceptions, Poten
t i a l
Applications, and
Field
Experience, by
Wanda Wallace
82-807
Using Financial Planning
Languages
for
Simulation,
by
Paul
Gray
82-808 A
Look
at How
Managers'
Minds Work, by John
W.
Slocum,
Jr.
and
Don
Hellriegel
82-900
The
Impact
of
Price
Earnings Ratios
on
Portfolio Returns,
by John
w
Peavy, I I I
and David A.
Goodman
82-901 Replicating
Electric
Util i ty Short-Term Credit Ratings,
by John
W.
Peavy, I I I
and
S.
Michael
Edgar
82-902
Job
Turnover Versus Company Turnover: Reassessment of the
March
and
Simon Participation
Model,
by Ellen F. Jackofsky and Lawrence
H. Peters
82-903 Investment
Management by
Multiple
Managers: An
Agency-Theoretic
Explanation, by Christopher
B.
Barry
and
Laura
T.
Starks
82-904
The
Senior Marketing Off icer
An Academic
Perspective, by
James
T. Rothe
82-905 The Impact
of Cable Television
on
Subscriber
and
Nonsubscriber
Be
havior,
by James T.
Rothe, Michael
G.
Harvey,
and George c.
Michael
82-110 Reasons
for Quitting:
A Comparison
of
Part-Time and Full-Time
Employees,
by James
R. Salter,
Lawrence
H. Peters,
and
Ellen
F.
Jackofsky
82-111 Integrating
Financial Portfolio
Analysis
with
Product Portfolio
Models,
by
Vijay
Mahajan
and
Jerry Wind
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
23/28
82
-112 A Non-Un
ifo rm
Influence Inno
vationDi
ffusion Model
of New Product
Acceptan
ce, by C
hristopher
J . E as in g w o
od , Vij
ay
M
aha jan , and
Eitan
Muller
82-113
T h e
Accept
ability of
Re
gression
Analysi
s as E
vidence in a Court room
-
I
mplications
for the Aud
itor, by Wa
nda A.
Wallace
82-114
A
Further Inquiry
Into
the
Market Value
and
Earnings' Yield
Anomalies,
by
John
W
Peavy, I I I an
d David A. Goodman
82-
120
Co
mpensating Balances,
De
ficiency
Fees an d Lines of
C
redit: An
Opera
t
ional
Model, by Chun
H. L
am
and Ke
nneth J.
Bou
dreaux
82-121 T
ow ard a Formal
Model
of O
ptimal
Seller
Beh
avior
in
the
Real Estate
Transactions
Process,
by
Kerry
V
andell
82-122
Estimates
of the
Effect
of
School
Dese
gregation
Plans on
Housing
Values O ver
Time, by
Kerry D. Vandell
and Robert
H. Zerbst
8
2-123 Comp
ensating Balances,
Defic
iency
Fees
an d
L
ines of
Credit, by
Ch
un
H.
Lam
and
Kenneth
J .
Boudreaux
83-100 Te
achingSoftwar
e S y s tem
Design:
An Experie
ntial Appro
ach, by
T
homas E. Perk
ins
83-101
RiskPer
ceptions
of
In
sti tutional Inve
stors, by
Gail
E. Farr
elly
and
William
R. Rei
chenstein
83
-102 An Int
eractive ppro
ach
to
Pensi
onFund Asset
Man ag eme
nt, by D av i
d A.
Goodman an d
Jo
hn W. Peav
y,
I I I
83-103
Tech
nology, Structure,
and Workgroup
Effectivene
ss: A Te
st
of
a
Contingency
Model, by Louis
W
Fry an d J
ohn W Slocum
, J r
83-104
Environmen
t,
S
trategy an d
Performa
nce: An
Em
pirical Anal
ysis
in Two
Se
rvice I
ndustr ies, b
y William R.
Bigler, J
r an d B an w ar i
L . Kedia
83-105
Robu
st
Regress
ion: M
eth od and
App
lications, by Vi
jay
M
ahajan ,
Subha
sh S h arma ,
and Jerry
W
ind
83-10
6
An App
ro ach
to
Repe
at-Purchase
Diffus
ion Analysis,
by Vijay M a
haja n ,
S u b h ash S h
arm a, and Jerr
yWind
83-200
AL
ife
Sta
geAnalys
is of
Small
Bus
iness Strate
gies
and
Pe
rformance,
by Raje
swararao Chagant
i, Radhara
o Chaganti,
an d Vij
ay M ahajan
83-20
1 Reality S hock : W
hen A Ne
w Emplo
yee's
Ex
pectations Don't
Match
Real
ity,
by
R
oger A. Dea
n and John
P. Wanous
83
-202 T h e
Effectsof Rea
listic Job
Preview
s
on Hir
ing Bank
Tellers, b
y
R
o g er A. Dea
n an d
John P. Wanous
83-203
Systemic
Properties
of
Strategy:
Evi
dence
and a
Caveat From
an
Example
Using a
Modified M iles-Snow
Typ
ology, Wi
lliam R. Bi
gler, Jr .
83 204 Diffe
rentialInform
ationan d
the Sm
all
Firm
Effec
t, by
Christo
pher
B. B
arryan d
StephenJ.
Brown
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
24/28
83-300
Constrained Classification:
The Use
of
a
Prior i Information in
Cluster Analysis, by Wayne S. DeSarbo and Vijay Mahajan
83-301 Substi tutes for Leadership:
A Modest
Proposal for Future
Investi
gations of
Their
Neutralizing Effects, by S. H.
Clayton
and D. L.
Ford, Jr
.
83-302
Company Homicides and
Corporate
Muggings:
Prevention
Through
Stress
Buffer ing-
Toward
an
Integrated
Model,
by
D.
L.
Ford,
Jr.
and
S.
H. Clayton
83-303
A Comment
on the
Measurement of Firm Performance
in Strategy
Re
search, by Kenneth R. Ferris and Richard A. Bettis
83-400 Small
Businesses,
the
Economy, and High
Interest Rates: Impacts
and
Actions
Taken
in Response, by Neil
C.
Churchill
and
Virginia
L.
Lewis
83-401 Bonds
Issued
Between
Interest Dates:
What Your Textbook Didn't
Tell You,
by
Elbert
B.
Greynolds,
Jr. and
Arthur
L. Thomas
83-402 An
Empirical
Comparison of Awareness Forecasting Models of
New
Product
Introduction, by Vijay Mahajan, Eitan
Muller,
and Subhash
Sharma
83-500 A Closer Loot:. at Stock-For-Debt Swaps, by
John
W.
Peavy
I I I
and
Jonathan
A.
Scott
83-501
Small
Business
Evaluates i t s Relationship with
Commercial
Banks,
by
William
C. Dunkelberg and
Jonathan A. Scott
83-502 Small
Business
and the Value of Bank-Customer Relationships, by
William
C. Dunkelberg and
Jonathan A. Scott
83-503 Differential
Infortllation
and
the Small Firm Effect, by Christopher
B.
Barry
and Stephen J . Brown
83-504
Accounting Paradigms and Short-Term
Decisions:
A
Preliminary
Study, by Michael
van
Breda
83-505 Introduction Strategy for New Products
with
Positive
and
Negative
Word-Of-Mouth, by
Vijay
Mahajan,
Eitan Muller
and Roger
A.
Kerin
83-506 Ini t ia l Observations
from
the Decision
Room
Project, by
Paul
Gray
83-600 A Goal Focusing Approach to Analysis of Integenerational Transfers
of
Income:
Theoretical
Development and
Preliminary
Results,
by
A.
Charnes, W. W. Cooper,
J . J. Rousseau, A.
Schinnar,
and
N.
E.
Terleckyj
83-601 Reoptimization
Procedures
for Bounded Variable
Primal
Simplex
Net
work
Algorithms,
by
A. Iqbal Ali, Ellen P. Allen, Richard S. Barr,
and Jeff L.
Kennington
83-602
The
Effect
of
the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 on
Small Business
Loan
Pricing,
by
Jonathan A.
Scott
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
25/28
83-80
0 Multiple K
ey Infor
mants' Perceptio
ns
of
Busin
ess
Env
ironments,
by
Wil
liam L
. C ron and
John W. Sloc
um , Jr
8
3-801
Pr
edicting
Sales
force
R
eactions
to New
T
erritory
Desig
n According
to Equity
The
ory
Pro
positions,
by William
L. Cron
83-802 Bank P
er formance in
the E merg
ingRecove
ry: A
Changing Risk-Retur
n
Environm
ent,
by Jonathan
A. Scot
t and G eorge
H. Hempel
83-803 Busine
ss
Synergy an d Prof
itabi l i ty ,
by Vijay M ah
ajan and Yor
am
W
ind
83-804
Adver
tising,
Pric
ing and Sta
bil i ty
in
Oligo
polistic
Markets
for
New Pr
oducts, b
y
Cha
im Fershtman,
Vija
y Mahajan, an d
EitanMuller
83-805 Ho
w
H
ave The Prof
essional Stand
ards In
fluenced Pra
ctice?, by
Wanda -
A. Wallace
83-806 What
Attribute
s of
an
Intern
alAuditing
Depar
tment
Signifi
cantly
Increa
se
t
he
Probab
ility
ofExternal Audi
tors Relying
on
the Internal
Au
dit D
epartment?, b
y Wand
a
A.
Wallace
83-807 Building B
ridges in
Rotary, by M
ichael F.
van Br
eda
83-808 A New A p
proach
to Variance A
nalysis,
by
Mic
hael F.
van Breda
83-809 R
esidual Income
Analysis:
A M ethod of
In vento
ry
Investmen
t All
oca
t ion
and
Evaluation, by M
ichael Levy
and Charles
A. Ingene
83-810 Taxes,
Insurance
, an d Corpor
at e Pens
ion
Policy
, by
Andrew
H. Chen
83-811 An Analy
sis
of
th
e
Impact of Regulato
ry C hange:
The C ase
of
Natural Gas
Dere
gulation, by Andre
w H.
Chen a
nd Gary
C. Sanger
83-900 Networks
with
Side
Constraints: An
LU
Factorizat ion
Update,
by
Rich
ard S
.
Barr
, Keyv
an Farhangian
, an d
Jeff L . Ken
nington
83-
901 Diver
sification St
rategies
and
Manager
ial R
ew ards:
An
E
mpirical
Study, by Jeff
rey L Kerr
83-902 A
Decis
ion Support
S y s tem f
or Developing
Retail P
romotional Strategy
,
by Paul E.
Green,
Vijay Mahajan
,
Stephe
n M. Go
ldberg,
and
P
radeep
K.
Kedia
33-903
Network
Genera
ting Mo d el
s for Equipm
ent
Re
placement,
by J
ay E.
Aro
nson
an
d Julius S.
Aronof
sky
83-9
04 Differenti
al Information
an d
Security
Market Equilibriu
m, by
Chris
topher B. Barry
and Steph
enJ . Brown
83
-905 Optim
izationMethods in
Oil and G
as Develo
pment, b
y
Juliu
sS.
Aronofsky
83-906
Benefit
s
and Costs
of Disclo
sing C
apital
Inv
estment P
lans in
Corp
ora te A n n u a l R
eports,
by
G
ail E. Farrelly
and
arion
G.
Sobo
l.
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
26/28
83-907
Security
Price Reactions Around
Corporate
Spin-Off Announcements,
by
Gailen
L.
Rite
and James E. Owers
83-908 Costs
and
their
Assessment
to Users of
a
Medical Library: Recovering
Costs from
Service
Usage, by E. Bres, A. Charnes, D. Cole Eckels,
S.
Hitt , R. Lyders,
J . Rousseau,
K. Russell and M. Schoeman
83-110 ''Microcomputers
in
the
Banking Industry, by Chun
H.
Lam and George
H. Hempel
83-111 Current
and
Potential Application of
Microcomputers
in Banking
-
Survey Results, by Chun H. Lam and George H. Hempel
83-112 Rural Versus
Urban Bank
Performance: An Analysis of
Market
Competition
for
Small
Business Loans, by Jonathan
A.
Scott
and
William
C.
Dunkelberg
83-113 An
Approach
to
Positivity
and
Stabili ty Analysis in DEA,
by A.
Charnes,
W. W Cooper, A.
Y. Lewin, R.
C.
Morey, and
J. J .
Rousseau
83-114 The
Effect
of Stock-for-Debt on
Security Prices,
by John
W
Peavy, I I I
and
Jonathan A. Scott
83-115
Risk/Return Performance of Diversified Firms,
by
Richard
A.
Bettis
and
Vijay
Mahajan
83-116 Strategy
as
Goals-Means
Structure
and
Performance: An
Empirical
Examination, by William R. Bigler,
Jr .
and Banwari L. Kedia
83-117 Collective Climate:
Agreement
as
a
Basis for Defining Aggregate
Climates in
Organizations,
by William F. Joyce and
John W.
Slocum,
Jr .
83-118 Diversity
and
Performance:
The
Elusive Linkage,
by C. K.
Prahalad
and Richard A. Bettis
83-119
Analyzing Dividend
Policy:
A
Questionnaire Survey,
by
H.
Kent
Baker, Richard
B. Edelman, and
Gail
E. Farrelly
83-120
Conglomerate Merger, Wealth Redistribution
and Debt,
by Chun
H.
Lam
and Kenneth
J .
Boudreaux
83-121 Differences
Between
Futures
and Forward Prices:
An Empirical
Investi
gation of the Marking-To-Market Effects, by Hun
Y.
Park
and Andrew H.
Chen
83-122
The
Effect
of Stock-for-Debt
Swaps on Bank
Holding Companies,
by
Jonathan
A. Scott , George H. Hempel, and
John W
Peavy, I I I
84-100
The
Low Price Effect:
Relationship with
Other Stock
Market
Anomalies,
by David A.
Goodman
and
John
W
Peavy,
III
84-101 The Risk
Universal
Nature
of the Price-Earnings
Anomaly, by David A.
Goodman
and
John W. Peavy, III
84-102
Business
Strategy
and
the
Management
of the
Plateaued Performer, by
John W.
Slocum,
Jr . William
L.
Cron,
Richard W.
Hansen, and
Sallie
Rawlings
84-103 Financial Planning for Savings
and Loan
Institutions - -A New Challenge,
by Chun
H. Lam
and
Kirk
R. Karwan
-
7/23/2019 Standards Overload and Differential Reporting.pdf
27/28
84-104
B ank
Performan
ce as the Economy
Reb
ounds,
y
Jonath
an A.
Sc
ott and
George
H. Hempel
84
-105 The Optim
ality
of Multipl
e
Inv
estment Manag
ers: Num
erical Examp
les,
b
y
Chr
istopher
B. Barry
an
d Laura T.
Starks
84-200 Mi
crocomputers
in Loan M
an ag emen t ,
y Chun H.
Lam an d G eo r
g e
H.
Hempe
l
84-201
U se
of
Financial
Planning
Languages
for
the
Optimization of
Generated
N
etworks
for E q u ip men
t Replacem
ent, by Jay E
. A ro n so n an
d Julius S.
Ar
onofsky
84-30
0
R
eal
Estate Investme
nt F
unds: Perfo
rmance and
Po
rtfolio
Consid
erations,
y
W.
B
. B rueggema
n, A.
H.
C he
n, and T . G
.
Thibodeau
84-301
A
New Wrink
le
in Corpora t
e Finance:
Levera
ged Preferre
d Financing
,
y Andrew
H. Chen and
John
W K
ensinger
84-400 Reach
ing the
C
hanging
Woman Consumer
:
An Experim
ent
in A
dvertising,
by Th
omas E.
Barry, Mary
C. Gil
ly
and Lindley
E. Do
ran
84-
401 Foreca
sting, Repo
rting, an d C o
p in g with
Systemati
c Risk, y Mar i
on G.
Sobol and
Gail E. Farrelly
84-402 Man
agerial Inc
entives in Port
folio M an
agement: A
New
Motive for the Use
of
Multiple M
anagers, by Chr
is topher
B. Barry an d
Laura T .
Starks
84-600 Under
standing S
ynergy: A
Con ceptu
al
a
n d Empir
ical Researc
h Propos
al,
y W
illiamR.
Bigler, Jr
84-60
1 Managing
fo
r
U
niqueness: Some
Distinction
s for Strat
egy, by
William
R. Big
ler,
Jr
84-602
Firm Performance
M easurement
Using
Trend,
Cyclical,
an d
Stochastic
Compo
nents, by Richard
A. Betti
s
an
d Vijay M ah
ajan
84-603
Sma
ll
Busines
s Bank
Len
ding:
Both
Sides are W
inners,
by
Neil
C.
Ch
urchill and Vir
ginia L . L
ew is
84-700
As
sessing
the Impa
ct of
Market Inte
rventions on Firm
's P