Mandatory disclosure of interim reporting by Malaysian companies

Abstract

Interim reporting has become an important medium that allows listed companies to communicate with their stakeholders. In Malaysia, accounting standards and listing requirements regulate disclosures for interim reports. This study analysed the quarterly reports issued by 60 listed companies in Malaysia during 2005-2007. It established the timeliness of these reports and the level of disclosure compared with those mandated by Financial Reporting Standard 134 Interim Reporting and Paragraph 2.22 of the listing requirement specified by the Malaysian Stock Exchange. An unweighted disclosure index model was developed to determine the level of disclosure. Independent variables of company size, leverage, profitability, liquidity and industry are considered to be associated with the level of disclosure and timeliness. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Findings for timeliness in this study reveal that: (a) some companies filed reports after the due date or allowable period had passed; (b) the length of time taken to file the report for the fourth quarter was longer than for other quarters; (c) the mean times for the filing of quarterly reports were 51 days for Q1 in all three years, 50 days for Q2 and Q3 in all three years, and 50 days for Q4 in 2005 and 2006, and 56 days for 2007; and (d) the average mean time taken to file reports for each quarter was between 50 to 56 days. The result of the Friedman test implies that there are statistically significant differences in the mean rank for timeliness across years. However, a mixed result was found regarding the mean of timeliness between quarters. No industry effect was observed for the mean of timeliness. With regard to disclosure, this study found that the compliance level was between 87 and 97 percent for all three years. In other words, none of the companies fully complied with all the disclosure requirements! Results of one-way repeated analysis of variance revealed that there was a significant difference in the means of the level of disclosure within the 2006 year. However, no significant differences could be observed for these means between quarters and across industries. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the means of the level of disclosure for two groups of companies, those that “comply with the Reporting but not with the Listing” and those with “non-compliance with both requirements”. The regression analysis revealed that there was a mixed association between the levels of disclosure. For example, an association could be found for level of disclosure and company size for Q1 and Q3, profitability for Q3, and liquidity for Q2 and Q4. Similar results were observed for the determinants of timeliness, such as the company size for Q1, Q2 and Q3, profitability for Q1, Q3 and Q4, and liquidity for Q1 and Q2 had a relationship with the timeliness. In addition, no association was found between leverage and level of disclosure and leverage and timeliness for all quarters. A further investigation was conducted against the notes of quarterly reports to determine the extent of disclosure, namely comments on seasonality and cyclicality, review of the performance (quarterly and yearly), material changes in the profit before tax, company prospects (future and current), Board of Directors’ opinion, and profit forecast. The findings reveal that most of the companies chose to satisfy only the minimum requirement. In addition, the Board of Directors’ opinion and profit forecasts were frequently not made available. This study also revealed that no enforcement actions or penalties were imposed on the non-compliant companies.