Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:56:51.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What SSAP 24 can tell us about accounting quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

P. J. Sweeting
P. J. Sweeting*
Affiliation:
Professor Paul Sweeting, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Science, The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NZ
*
Contact addresses P. J. Sweeting, F.I.A. J.P. Morgan, Asset Management, Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street, London, EC2Y 9AQ U.K. Tel: +44(0)20 7742 0501. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Statement of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAP) 24 required, for the first time, particular levels of disclosure in relation to firms’ pension arrangements. Whilst this was a major step forward, it allowed a significant degree of discretion. This discretion meant that SSAP 24 was an observable measure of the quality and quantity of accounting disclosure for firms. This information can be used to determine the types of firms that give less information or use weaker assumptions. In my analysis, I find some evidence that large firms give more complete disclosures, but also that they are more able to exert influence on their actuaries to use weaker assumptions for the valuation of pension scheme liabilities. There is also some evidence that more profitable firms disclose less, so firms with a higher average tax rate might want to overfund their pension scheme. Finally, there is evidence that highly levered funds are less likely to give complete disclosure, and that when they do disclose their assumptions, they use a weaker basis.

Keywords

Statement of Standard Accounting PracticeSSAP 24Accounting DisclosureValuation of Pension Scheme LiabilitiesDisclosure Assumptions
Type
Sessional meetings: papers and abstracts of discussions
Information
British Actuarial Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 723 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Accounting Standards Board. (2000). Financial Reporting Standard 17: Retirement Benefits. ASB Publications.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bera, A., Jarque, C. (1981). Efficient Tests for Normality, Heteroskedasticty, and Serial Independence of Regression Residuals: Monte Carlo Evidence. Economics Letters, 7, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, M.E. (1980). Stock Returns and Dividend Yields: Some More Evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodie, Z., Light, J.O., Mørck, R., Taggart, R.A. (1985). Corporate Pension Policy: An Empirical Investigation. Financial Analysts Journal, 41, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M., Jarrell, G.A., Kim, E.H. (1984). On the Existence of an Optimal Capital Structure: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Finance, 39, 857–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckmaster, D., Saniga, E. (1990). Distributional Forms of Financial Accounting Ratios: Pearson's and Johnson's Taxonomies. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 16, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelo, H., Masulis, R.W. (1980). Optimal Capital Structure under Corporate and Personal Taxation. Journal of Financial Economics, 8, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelo, L. (1981). Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E.F., French, K.R. (1992). The Cross-section of Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, 47, 427–465.Google Scholar
Feldstein, M., Morck, R. (1983). Pension Funding Decisions, Interest Rate Assumptions and Share Prices. in Bodie, Z. and Shoven, J. (eds), Financial Aspects of the United States Pension System. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feldstein, M., Seligman, S. (1981). Pension Funding, Share Prices and National Savings. Journal of Finance, 36, 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, J.R., Reiter, S.A. (1987). Determinants of Corporate Pension Funding Strategy. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 9, 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, G.T., Hanka, G. (1999). Capital Structure and Corporate Control: the Effect of Antitakeover Statutes on Firm Leverage. Journal of Finance, 54, 519–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopalakrishnan, V., Sugrue, T.F. (1995). The Determinants of Actuarial Assumptions under Pension Accounting Disclosures. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 8, 35–41.Google Scholar
Gordon, M.J. (1962). The Investment, Financing, and Valuation of the Corporation. R. D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
Graham, B., Dodd, D. (1951). Security Analysis. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Graham, J.R. (1996). Debt and the Marginal Tax Rate. Journal of Financial Economics, 41, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. (1988). Statement of Standard Accounting Practice No. 24: Accounting for Pension Costs.Google Scholar
Kane, G.D., Meade, N.L. (1998). Ratio Analysis using Rank Transformation. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 10, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolari, J., McInish, T.H., Saniga, E. (1989). A Note on the Distribution types of Financial Ratios in the Commercial Banking Industry. Journal of Banking and Finance, 13, 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H.B., Whitney, D.R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, A.J. (1987). Corporate Pension Policy and the Value of PBGC Insurance. in Bodie, Z., Shoven, J.B. and Wise, D.A. (eds), Issues in Pension Economics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mautz, R., Sharaf, H. (1961). The Philosophy of Auditing. American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. in Zarembka, P. (ed), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Friesen, P.H. (1984). A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle. Management Science, 30, 1161–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S.C. (1984). The Capital Structure Puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S.C., Majluf, N.S. (1984). Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions when Firms Have Information that Investors Do Not Have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajan, R.G., Zingales, L. (1995). What do we Know about Capital Structure? Some Evidence from International Data. Journal of Finance, 50, 1421–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J.K., Francis, J.R. (2001). Does Size Matter? The Influence of Large Clients on Office-Level Reporting Decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, W.F. (1976). Corporate Pension Funding Policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, I., Affleck, A.R.P. (1974). Pension Plan Liabilities and Corporate Financial Strategies. Journal of Finance, 29, 1549–1564.Google Scholar
Thies, C.F., Sturrock, T. (1988). The Pension-Augmented Balance Sheet. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55, 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar