The Chairman's Statement and Corporate Financial Performance

Agency theory and signalling theory both suggest that firms are motivated to disclose excellence of financial performance in an unambiguous manner. We might expect, therefore, that good financial performance is associated with a clear and readable Chairman's narrative and poor performance with an obscure or misleading message. Extant work linking corporate performance with clarity of executive narrative fails to distinguish sample cases by industry or financial status. This paper seeks to overcome the consequences of such deficiencies explicitly, by conducting a systematic analysis of the relationship between narrative complexity and alternative measures of financial performance, for a matched sample of failed/non‐failed companies across common industries. This study employs separate measures of the readability and the understandability of the chairman's narrative and finds them to be significantly related to overall financial performance and individual measures of performance, most notably liquidity. Poor readability is strongly associated with poor financial performance and ease of readability with relative financial success. The implication is that firms actively signal good news while obscuring, perhaps deliberately, messages which convey bad news.

[1]  Douglas A. Schroeder,et al.  An Empirical-Investigation Of The Effect Of Quarterly Earnings Announcement Timing On Stock Returns , 1984 .

[2]  Andrew A. Haried.  The Semantic Dimensions of Financial Statements , 1972 .

[3]  A. H. Adelberg.  METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING THE UNDERSTANDABILITY OF FINANCIAL REPORT MESSAGES , 1979 .

[4]  S PASHALIAN,et al.  How readable are corporate annual reports? , 1950, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Richard Taffler,et al.  Readability and Understandability: Different Measures of the Textual Complexity of Accounting Narrative , 1992 .

[6]  M. J. Jones,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Readability of the Chairman's Narratives in the Corporate Reports of a UK Company , 1988 .

[7]  Andrew A. Haried.  Measurement of Meaning in Financial Reports , 1973 .

[8]  W. Kwolek,et al.  A Readability Survey of Technical and Popular Literature , 1973 .

[9]  Lee D. Parker,et al.  Accounting Report Readability: The Use of Readability Techniques , 1986 .

[10]  Stephen H. Penman,et al.  Timeliness Of Reporting And The Stock-Price Reaction To Earnings Announcements , 1984 .

[11]  The Validity of the Miller-Coleman Readability Scale. , 1969 .

[12]  A. H. Adelberg.  Narrative Disclosures Contained in Financial Reports: Means of Communication or Manipulation? , 1979 .

[13]  Bruce L. Oliver,et al.  The Semantic Differential: A Device for Measuring the Interprofessional Communication of Selected Accounting Concepts , 1974 .

[14]  J. R. Morton.  Qualitative Objectives of Financial Accounting: A Comment on Relevance and Understandability , 1974 .

[15]  C. Bjornsson.  Readability of Newspapers in 11 Languages. , 1983 .

[16]  K. Houghton.  The measurement of meaning in accounting: A critical analysis of the principal evidence , 1988 .

[17]  J. Courtis,et al.  An Investigation into Annual Report Readability and Corporate Risk-Return Relationships , 1986 .

[18]  Richard D. Morris,et al.  Signalling, Agency Theory and Accounting Policy Choice , 1987 .

[19]  John R. Bormuth,et al.  CLOZE TEST READABILITY: CRITERION REFERENCE SCORES , 1968 .

[20]  R. Taffler,et al.  The Assessment of Company Solvency and Performance using a Statistical Model , 1983 .

[21]  M. D. Still.  The Readability of Chairmen's Statements , 1972 .

[22]  E. B. Coleman,et al.  A set of thirty-six prose passages calibrated for complexity , 1967 .

[23]  K. Houghton.  True and fair view: An empirical study of connotative meaning , 1987 .

[24]  Wilson L. Taylor,et al.  “Cloze Procedure”: A New Tool for Measuring Readability , 1953 .