The purpose of this study is to examine some of the potential impacts of more frequent financial reporting and concurrent assurance, as assessed by members of the assurer, preparer, and investor communities. Two hundred and fifteen participants (84 auditors, 30 controllers, 80 investors, as surrogated by MBA students, and 21 sell‐side analysts) took part in an experiment where they received a case situation involving a company that was planning to voluntarily change from quarterly to monthly (daily) external financial statement reporting, without (with) assurance. After reading the case materials, the participants assessed the likely effects of such changes on the decision usefulness of financial statements, quality of earnings, financial reporting behavior, stock market price volatility, analysts' consensus forecasts, and cost of capital.
The results indicate that monthly reporting without assurance would significantly enhance the decision usefulness of financial statements, improve the quality of earnings, and reduce managements' aggressiveness with respect to discretionary accounting accruals, estimates, and principles; further, the findings suggest stock price volatility would be lower, analyst consensus of future earnings estimates would increase, and cost of capital would decrease. Assessments of daily reporting were consistent with monthly reporting, yet significantly stronger. The inclusion of concurrent auditor assurance resulted in directionally consistent yet significantly pronounced results in both monthly and daily reporting conditions on all measures. Additionally, participants agreed that providing monthly reports would be technically and economically feasible at this time, while daily reporting would not be feasible.
