A Comparative Analysis of Auditor, Manager and Financial Analyst Interpretations of SFAS 5 Disclosure Guidelines

Abstract

This study examines empirically whether financial analysts (users), as well as managers (preparers) and external auditors ascribe different interpretations to the SFAS 5 disclosure criteria. We find: (1) financial analysts are, on average, more conservative than managers and auditors in their numerical interpretations of both the ‘remote’ and ‘probable’ verbal phrases; (2) managers and auditors share very similar numerical interpretations of these verbal phrases; (3) audit partners’ numerical interpretations of the ‘remote’ region are between those of managers and users, whereas audit managers align their numerical interpretations with those of managers. One danger is that preparers of financial statements may omit loss contingency information that users consider valuable.