Determinants of Corporate Internet Reporting: Evidence from Egypt
Doaa Aly*
The Park
Tel: +44 1242 714350
Email: daly@glos.ac.uk
Email: daly@glos.ac.uk
Jon Simon
Hull HU6 7RX
Tel: +44 1482 463013
Email: j.b.simon@hull.ac.uk
Khaled Hussainey
Accounting and Finance Division
Tel: +44 1786 467286
Email: khaled.hussainey@stir.ac.uk
* Correspondence author.
Abstract
Purpose: Our paper aims to examine the potential factors that may affect the level of corporate internet reporting by Egyptian listed companies.
Methodology: We use the content analysis approach to examine the information cited by the largest Egyptian companies in their websites. We modify and use the disclosure index of Xiao et al. (2004). OLS multiple regression analysis is used to examine the determinants of the internet reporting.
Findings: We find that 56% of Egyptian companies report a significant portion of information on their websites. In addition, we find that some financial characteristics explain the variation in the degree of internet reporting between Egyptian listed companies. In particular, profitability, foreign listing and industrial type (communications and financial services) are the determinants of the amount and presentation formatting of information disclosed on Egyptian companies’ websites. However, other firm characterises, such as firm size, leverage, liquidity and auditor size, do not explain corporate internet reporting.
Practical implications: Our paper is important because it helps in informing regulators about the characteristics of Egyptian companies that are, and are not, satisfying national and international investors’ demand of updated/online information.
Originality/value: To the best of our knowledge, there is no study examining the potential drivers of internet corporate reporting practice in Egypt Egypt
Paper type: Research paper
Keywords: Voluntary disclosure, Internet reporting, Developing countries, Egypt
Introduction
The potential role of the internet, as a relatively new means of communicating information to the general public in developing countries, is to meet stakeholder demands for greater speed and volume of timely information, in better and more effective ways (Willis et al., 2003). The use of the internet enables information to be disseminated worldwide and thus facilitate the improved availability of financial information in particular, so encouraging investment.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential factors that may affect the level of corporate internet reporting by Egyptian companies listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange.[1] Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt Egypt
To the best of our knowledge, there is no study examining the potential drivers of the levels of corporate internet reporting in Egypt Egypt
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature and describes the development of our research hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research methodology. Section 4 provides the descriptive analysis and the main findings. Section 5 concludes, discusses the research limitation and provides lines for further research.
Literature review and hypotheses development
The majority of internet reporting studies are focused on USA USA UK Sweden Germany Spain
A number of studies examined the determinants of internet financial reporting in developed countries such as New Zealand (Oyeler et al., 2003; Fisher et al., 2004), Australia (Lodhia et al., 2004; Chan and Wickramasinghe, 2006), Canada (Trabelsi et al., 2004; Trabelsi, 2007) and Japan (Marston, 2003).
It is noticeable that most of the prior studies were undertaken for developed countries, especially the USA
A few studies on the determinants of the internet reporting were conducted in developing countries such as Thailand Malaysia China Egypt
In Egypt Egypt Egypt
A number of explanatory studies examine the determinants of online reporting. Some researchers examined only one factor such as firm size (Allam and Lymer, 2003) or industry type (Hussainey and Al-Nodel, 2008). Other researchers examined two factors such as company size and capital ownership (Pirchegger and Wagenhofer, 1999) or company size and industry type (Craven and Marston, 1999). A few studies examined a greater number of factors, such as Xiao et al. (2004). In the present paper, we examine seven factors as potential drivers of the internet reporting in Egypt
Agency theory uses management incentives to explain voluntarily disclosure. Watson et al. (2002) stated that managers have incentives to increase disclosure to convince shareholders that they are acting optimally because they know that shareholders seek to control their behaviour through bonding and monitoring activities. Therefore, one way of reducing agency costs is to increase the levels of corporate disclosure. Many disclosure studies have used agency theory to explain cross-sectional variation in voluntary disclosure practice (see for example Ruland et al., 1990; Cooke, 1989a, 1991, 1993).
Based on Signalling Theory; firms tries to adopt the same level of disclosure as other firms within the same industry do because if a firm does not keep up with the same level of disclosure as others, it may be perceived by stakeholders that it is hiding bad news (Craven and Marston, 1999). Therefore, firms may use internet disclosure to keep pace with other firms in the same industry. Craven and Marston (1999:323) stated that “The very use of the Internet might itself be a signal of high quality. It implies that the firm is modern and up to date with the latest technology rather than old fashioned and conservative”.
It is also argued that managers of profitable firms increase the level of disclosure to signal to investors that the firm is profitable and to support their continuation and compensation (Oyeler et al., 2003:36).
Our paper develops hypotheses concerning the association between the internet reporting and seven firm characteristics which potentially affect disclosure decisions of Egyptian companies. These characteristics are: firm's size, profitability, leverage, liquidity, sector type, auditor size and foreign listing.
Firm's size
Prior research has examined the association between the level of internet reporting and firm’s size and finds a significant positive association (Xiao et al., 1996). Xiao et al. (1996:218) explained this association as follows:
“Large companies are more likely than small ones to use IT [Information Technology] to improve financial reporting to meet the greater demand for information”.
Ashbaugh et al. (1999) noted that economies of scale suggest that large firms are more likely to post financial reports on websites. This is because larger firms usually have more products and more complex distribution networks which require larger and more complex management information systems and databases for management control purposes. In addition, McKinnon and Dalimunthe (1993:40) argued that “larger firms tend to attract more analysts’ followings than smaller ones, and may therefore be subjected to greater demand by analysts for private information”. Therefore disclosure costs per £ of sales may be generally lower for larger firms (Oyeler et al., 2003). Based on these arguments, we hypothesise that:
H1: Large Egyptian firms are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than small Egyptian firms.
Profitability
Signalling theory suggests that profitable companies have an incentive to disclose more information, to signal the firm’s profitability to investors to support management continuation of their positions and levels of compensation (Oyeler et al., 2003), and to raise capital at the lowest price (Marston and Polei, 2004). Agency theory also suggests that managers of profitable companies have an incentive to disclose more information in order to boost their compensation (Abd El Salam, 1999).
Prior research has examined the association between profitability and the extent of disclosure; however; the results are mixed (Street and Gray, 2002). For example, Pirchegger and Wagenhofer (1999) found that profitability affects internet reporting of Austrian companies, but it does not affect that of German companies. Marston and Polei (2004) and Oyeler et al. (2003) found that profitability is not associated with internet reporting. Ismail (2002) found that profitability may increase the likelihood of the firm publishing financial information via the internet when this variable is within a particular range. If it increases beyond this range, the likelihood of firms publishing financial information on the net decreases. Based on these arguments, we hypothesise that:
H2: Egyptian firms with high profitability are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than Egyptian firms with low profitability.
Leverage
Empirical evidence regarding the association between leverage and internet reporting is inconclusive. A positive association was found in Ettredge et al. (2002) and Ismail (2002), while a negative association was found in Brennan and Hourigan (1998), Debreceny et al. (2002), Oyeler et al. (2003), Xiao et al. (2004), and Debreceny and Rahman (2004).
Agency theory has been used to explain the relationship between leverage and corporate disclosure. Increased disclosure can reduce debt holders’ inclinations to price-protect against transfers from themselves to shareholders (Xiao et al., 2004). Debreceny et al. (2002) observed that increases in the debt-equity ratio create agency costs. Management could voluntarily disclose on the internet to allow creditors to monitor constantly the affairs of the company and help them assess the ability of the company to pay its obligations on time. Ismail (2002) added that although there are extra costs associated with dissemination of corporate information on the internet, this dissemination might provide more up to date reliable information to creditors and would in return reduce agency costs.
In contrast, Oyeler et al. (2003) found that leverage does not explain the decision to use internet for corporate financial reporting. They explained that this may be due to differences between internet reporting and the traditional print-based financial reporting environment and culture, manifested in the differences of costs, benefits, and demand and supply structures of the two environments (Oyeler et al., 2003). Based on these arguments, we hypothesise that:
H3: Egyptian firms with a high leverage ratio are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than Egyptian firms with low leverage ratio.
Liquidity
Abd El Salam (1999) argued that companies, according to signalling theory, will disclose more information if their liquidity ratio is high, to distinguish themselves from other companies with less favourable liquidity. Agency theory suggests that companies with a low liquidity ratio may provide more information to satisfy the information requirements of shareholders and creditors.
Several studies have examined the relationship between liquidity and the extent of disclosure. However, again the results are mixed. For instance, Oyeler et al. (2003) found that liquidity is considered one of the primary determinants of internet financial reporting among New Zealand
H4: More liquid Egyptian firms are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than less liquid Egyptian firms.
Industry type
Industry type has been used in prior studies as a determinant of internet reporting. For example, Lymer (1997), Oyeler et al. (2003) Debreceny et al. (2002), Brennan and Hourigan (1998), Ismail (2002) and Hussainey and Al-Nodel (2008) found a significant association between industry type and the extent of internet reporting. In contrast, Craven and Marston (1999) found no association between the two variables. This may be due to the fact that different industry classifications were used in prior research (i.e. a smaller number of categories may give different results to a larger number of categories).
Signalling theory explains that companies within the same industry tend to adopt the same level of disclosure. If a company within an industry fails to follow the same disclosure practices, including internet disclosures, as others in the same industry, then it may be interpreted as a signal that the company is hiding bad news (Craven and Marston, 1999). We therefore hypothesise that:
H5: The level of internet reporting is more likely to differ among firms in different industry sectors.
Auditor size
Hail (2002) suggested that audit quality is important factor in improving firms’ overall reporting practices. In addition, Xiao et al. (2004:201) argued that international audit firms are more likely to facilitate the diffusion of innovative practices, such as the internet reporting. They explained that: “PriceWaterhouseCoopers has developed EDGARSCAN which can be used to retrieve filings stored in EDGAR and allow automatic comparison of financial statements prepared by different companies…. The big 5 audit firms also are partners of XBRL (extensible business reporting language) initiated by AICPA and are likely to be better equipped than smaller auditors…… to advise their clients on IFD (Internet financial reporting)”.
In prior research, a positive association between audit type and disclosure has been found (Ahmed and Nicholls, 1994; Raffournier, 1995; and Xiao et al., 2004). Other researchers found no significant association (Hossain et al., 1995, Abd El Salam, 1999 and Wallace et al., 1994). Based on these arguments, we hypothesise that:
H6: Egyptian firms engaging one of the Big 4 international auditing firms are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than Egyptian firms engaging with other auditing firms.
Foreign listing
Firms seek foreign listing to obtain funds from the international capital markets at the lowest cost and for other benefits such as wider marketing of products, boosting corporate image, and gaining political acceptance by projecting the firm as being “local” in the foreign markets. Firms with a foreign listing face additional disclosure requirements and will provide more information than purely domestically listed companies to comply with the regulation of foreign stock markets if their requirements are greater than, or different to, those of their domestic exchanges (Cooke, 1992). In addition, foreign listed companies have to disclose more information to reduce information asymmetries between domestic and foreign investors. Internet reporting is used to reduce information asymmetry by its immediate and wide reach (Debreceny et al., 2002).
Xiao et al. (2004) found a positive association between companies with foreign listing and internet reporting. Debreceny et al. (2002) found that US listing is positively associated with internet reporting, while foreign listing is negatively associated. The high standards of disclosure and regulations in the US, for example, SEC’s rule FD (fair disclosure) may have induced firms listed in the US to adopt internet reporting compared to other firms that are not listed in the US (Debreceny et al., 2002). On the other hand, Oyeler et al. (2003) found no association between internet reporting and foreign listing. We hypothesise that:
H7: Egyptian firms listed in foreign stock exchanges are more likely to disclose more information on their websites than Egyptian firms listed only in Egyptian stock markets.
Research methodology
Construction of the disclosure index
The disclosure index used in this study was based on that employed by Xiao et al. (2004) and consisting of 82 items. The Xiao et al. index was in turn based on the frameworks of web-based disclosure suggested by Debreceny et al. (2001), Deller et al. (1999), Pirchegger and Wagenhofer (1999), and Marston and Polei (2004). The index consists of 58 items of disclosure content and 24 items of presentation format and accessibility factors. Xiao et al.’s (2004) disclosure index was chosen due to its comprehensiveness (based on four corporate internet disclosure studies which are themselves based on other studies), inclusion of both content and presentation format, and its use by other researchers so aiding comparison of results with previous internet disclosure studies.
The Xiao et al. (2004) index composition was adapted to fit the Egyptian environment by adding items found on websites of the Egyptian companies and extracting items unique to the Chinese environment. For example, the availability of Arabic websites was added to the index and items, such as resolutions of the board of directors and shareholder meetings, were excluded as they are not relevant in an Egyptian context. In addition we added the presence/absence of auditor, chairman names and signatures, summary annual reports, appropriation statement (statement of proposed dividend), comparative figures; earning per share and other ratios; corporate governance report; background or history of the organisation, PowerPoint presentation, contact us, link to Stock Exchange Websites and to Securities Companies Websites, financial information found in more than one place, credit ratings, conference calls and review of Interim Financial information.
Websites text only alternative and chat-room were removed as they are not available on Egyptian companies’ websites. This resulted in a disclosure index which encompassed 90 items; 59 items of disclosure content and 31 of presentation items (see Appendix 1)
We used the un-weighted dichotomous disclosure index which does not focus on a single user group (Bonson-Ponte and Escobar-Rodriguez, 2002). This decision was made for two reasons. First, previous studies employing both weighted and un-weighted indices found substantially similar results (Xiao et al., 2004). Second, assigning different weights for different items in the disclosure index may be misleading as the relative importance of each item varies from company to company, industry to industry and time to time (Abd El Salam, 1999). Therefore, if a company discloses (or failed to disclose) an item of information which is included in the index on its website, it receives a score of one (zero).
The disclosure index for each company was calculated by dividing the actual scores awarded by the maximum possible scores appropriate for the company. Therefore, the disclosure index (
Where
In calculating the index score for a specific company, Marston and Shrives (1991) argued that certain items of disclosure may not be applicable to a specific company. This issue was addressed in the above equation by the actual disclosure score for a company divided by the maximum score possible for that company.
Sample size and data collection
We selected the Egyptian companies with websites from amongst the top 100 most active traded companies listed in the Egyptian Stock Exchange. We deleted financial companies (i.e. banks and insurance companies) because of their unique reporting issues. We also excluded firms with websites ‘under construction’. This gave us a sample of 62 firms. Of these only 35 (56%) companies voluntary disclosed financial information on their websites.
We collected data from company websites between October 2005 and January 2006. We collected measures of firm’s size, profitability, liquidity and leverage. The name of the external auditor and the existence (the absence) of foreign listing are also collected. The websites were revisited in February 2006 as a validity check and no changes in the companies’ websites were found. In the case of companies whose websites were under construction, it was confirmed that they were still under construction up to the end of February 2006. Table 1 shows our independent variables and the expected signs of their hypothesised association with the level of internet reporting.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Empirical results
Multiple regression analysis is carried out on the 62 Egyptian companies which had websites. Data also is transformed before performing the multiple regression to avoid the problems of normality, homogeneity of variance and outliers. Following prior disclosure studies such as Lang and Lundholm (1993, 1996), Cooke (1998) and Al-Htaybat (2005), rank regression is used in this study. This method transforms data into ranks and then applies the regression technique. Rank scores used in this research were calculated using the Lang and Lundholm formulae (1993):
Percentile rank = (rank - 1) / (number of companies - 1).
Three dependent variables were used for internet reporting, namely, content, format and total score (which includes both content and format). To test our hypotheses, we use the following equation[3]:
Full rank and normal score transformation regression models were run for each of the dependent variables: total score, total content and total format. Histograms and normal distribution plots were employed once more to evaluate the normality of the residual distribution. For all models, the rank residual was normally distributed. The Durbin-Watson statistic was calculated for all models and its value was close to 2. The Durbin-Watson statistic is used to test whether the assumption of independent error is tenable; the closer the value to 2, the better, as it means that the assumption has been met (Field, 2005). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was inspected for models to ensure that the problem of multicollinearity did not exist. The VIF should be lower than 10 and tolerance should not be below 0.2 (Field, 2005), which was the case with all the models after using rank and normal regression.
Tables 2, 3 and 4 report the results of the rank regression when using total score, total content and total format as dependent variables, respectively. Furthermore, Tables 5, 6, and 7 show the results of the normal score regression when using total score, total content and total format as dependent variables respectively.
TABLES FROM 2 TO 7 ABOUT HERE
Table 2 shows that the ranked score regression of the total score model explained around 65.3% of the variance, measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 9.837, which is significant with a probability less than .001. Field (2005) clarified that the F-ratio is used to test the overall fit of the model; a good model should have an F-ratio greater than 1. Table 3 shows that the ranked score regression of the content model explained around 69.4% of the variance, measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 11.662, which is significant with a probability less than .001. Table 4 shows that the ranked score regression of the total format model explained around 54.4% of the variance, measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 6.596, which is significant with a probability less than .001. The t tests showed that return on equity, foreign listing and industrial sector (communications and financial services sectors) had a significant association with the level of internet reporting (total score and format). However, only the industrial sector (communications and financial services sectors) was significant for content.
Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the results of the normal score OLS regression model for the 62 companies which had websites. The first model, total score, explained 61.4% of the variance measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 8.453, which is significant with a probability less than .001. The second model, total content, explained 76.4% of the variance measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 11.941, which is significant with a probability less than .001. The third model, format explained 49.7% of the variance measured by adjusted R2 with an F-ratio of 5.635, which is significant with a probability less than .001. For the first and last models, t tests showed profitability (Return on Equity), foreign listing and industrial sector were significantly associated with the level of internet reporting (total score and format) at the 5% level. However, the type of business, mainly construction, communications and financial services, significantly affects the content of disclosure of financial information of the internet, as well as total assets.
Table 8 provides a summary of ranked and normal score regression analyses. It shows that there is a positive relationship between the profitability (ROE) of the Egyptian companies which have websites and the formats they use to disclose the financial information on their websites. This indicates that profitable companies use more formatting techniques to simplify the acquisition of the information from their websites. These results are consistent with prior research on internet reporting in developing countries (i.e. Ismail, 2002).
In addition, we find that foreign listing affects the formats companies use. Companies that are listed on more than one stock exchange make it easier for stakeholders to acquire the information from their websites. They display the information in more than one place with different formatting to make it easier to download or save. These findings are in line with Xiao et al, 2004).
Finally, we find that the industry type (communication and financial services) affects the amount and formatting of financial information displayed on companies’ websites. The results are consistent with prior research on online disclosure in developing countries (i.e. Ismail, 2002; Oyelere et al. 2003; Xiao et al, 2004; Hussainey and Al-Nodel, 2008).
TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study is to explore the association between key firm characteristics and the level of internet reporting by Egyptian companies. It uses a disclosure index to explore the content and the presentation format for individual company’s websites. Of the 98 companies surveyed only 68 had websites. The results for the sample of 62 companies listed in the Egyptian Stock Exchange show that over 50% of Egyptian companies voluntarily report financial information on their websites. The results also show that profitability, foreign listing and industrial sector (communications and financial services) are the most important factors that affect the amount and the presentation formats of internet reporting in Egypt
This paper is the first to examine the potential factors affecting corporate internet reporting in Egypt
This study presents a snapshot of internet financial reporting of Egyptian companies from October 2005 to January 2006. As internet reporting is a new phenomenon in Egypt Egypt Egypt
The explanatory power in the multiple regression analysis ranged between 50% and 76%; although this percentage is considerable, it might indicate that other variables that were not included in the model affect the level of disclosure. Therefore, future studies might usefully employ interviews to uncover other factors, such as religion, culture, organisational change and demographic characteristics, which could affect internet financial reporting and disclosure in Egypt
This study was not designed to explore the economic consequences of internet reporting, e.g. the extent to which internet financial reporting provides value-relevant information for investors. Future research might test empirically how internet disclosure impacts upon companies’ stock prices.
In addition, research has shown that firms tend to disclose more information in order to reduce information asymmetry between themselves and investors. By attracting more investors to the firm, the cost of capital is expected to be reduced for the company. Therefore, the relationship between the level of internet financial reporting and disclosure and cost of capital could be examined in future research.
Research is also required to explore how differences in presentation format of information affect user decisions. This could be undertaken by conducting an experiment to study the effects of different hypertext links and interfaces on users’ decisions and predictions, the amount of information accessed, and the time taken to make decisions.
This study used un-weighted disclosure index, which means that all information items are assumed to have the same degree of importance for investors. However, future studies could use a weighted disclosure index with questionnaires used to solicit the relative importance of different types of, and ways of disclosing, financial and non-financial information for various user groups.
Recently, corporate governance has become an important issue in both developed and developing countries. In October 2005, Egypt adopted a draft Corporate Governance Code based on the principles of corporate governance that were developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD), one of the pioneers in setting corporate governance standards (Mohieldin, 2006). Corporate governance is concerned with the relationship between management, board of directors and other shareholders. Corporate governance should be considered in internet disclosures as it is the board of directors that manage the disclosure of information. Therefore, future research might consider the association between both corporate governance characteristics and firm characteristics and the level of corporate internet reporting.
This study investigated the extent of internet reporting and characteristics of companies adopting internet financial reporting and as such it focused on supply rather than demand. Therefore, a better understanding of the different needs of users and the potential for effective reporting activity could be achieved by measuring demand side factors such as the frequency of visits to corporate websites to download or view financial information.
References
AbdelFattah, T., Dixon Egypt Durham University Durham
Abd El Salam, O.H. (1999), The Introduction and Application of International Accounting Standards to Accounting Disclosure Regulations of a Capital Market in Developing Country: The Case of Egypt, PhD Thesis. Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh , UK
Ahmed, K. and Nicholls, D. (1994), "The impact of non-financial company characteristics on mandatory disclosure compliance in developing countries: the case of Bangladesh
Ahmed, K. and Courtis, J.K. (1999), "Associations between corporate characteristics and disclosure levels in annual reports: a meta-analysis", The British Accounting Review, Vo. 31 No. 1, pp. 35-61.
AlDeesty, M. (2004), "Accounting and auditing on the Internet between practice and expectations: comparative empirical study for large Egyptian and American companies", Egyptian Journal of Commerce Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 1-36.
Al-Htaybat, K. (2005), Financial Disclosure Practices: Theoretical Foundation, and an Empirical Investigation on Jordanian Printed and Internet Formats, PhD Thesis. University of Southampton Southampton , UK
Al-Htaybat, K. and Napier, C. (2006), "Online corporate financial reporting in developing countries: The case of Jordan Portsmouth University Portsmouth , UK
Allam, A. and Lymer, A. (2003), “Developments in Internet financial reporting: Review and analysis across five developed countries”. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 3 (6), 165-206.
Ashbaugh, H., Johnstone, K.M. and Warfield, T.D. (1999), "Corporate reporting on the Internet", Accounting Horizons, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 241-257.
Bonson-Ponte, E. and Escobar-Rodriguez, T. (2002), "A survey on voluntary disclosure on the Internet: empirical evidence from 300 European Union companies", The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 27-52.
Booker, J. A. and Galbreath, S. C. (1997), “Financial information and the WWW current state of reporting practices”. National Public Accountant, 42 (8), 32.
Brennan, N. and Hourigan, D. (1998), "Corporate reporting on the Internet by Irish companies", Accountancy Ireland, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 18-21.
Chan, W. K. and Wickramasinghe, N. (2006), “Using the Internet for financial disclosures: The Australian experience”. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 1 (1), 118 -150.
Cooke, T. E. (1989), “Disclosure in the corporate annual reports of Swedish companies”. Accounting and Business Research, 19 (34), 113-124.
Cooke, T. E. (1991), “An assessment of voluntary disclosure in the annual reports of Japanese corporation”. International Journal of Accounting, 26 (3), 174-189.
Cooke, T.E. (1992), "The impact of size, stock market listing and industry type on disclosure in the annual reports of Japanese listed corporations", Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 87, pp. 229-237.
Cooke, T. E. (1993), “Disclosure in Japanese corporate annual reports”. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting, 20 (4), 521-535.
Cooke, T.E. (1998), "Regression analysis in accounting disclosure studies", Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 209-224.
Craven, B.M. and Marston, C.L. (1999), "Financial reporting on the Internet by leading UK
Davey, H. and Homkajohn, K. (2004), "Corporate Internet reporting: an Asian example". Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 2, pp. 211-227.
Debreceny, R. and Rahman, A. (2004), "Market and firm specific determinants of continuous corporate disclosures", The International Accounting Conference, Athens University of Economics Greece
Debreceny, R., Gray, G.L. and Mock, T.J. (2001), "Financial reporting websites: what users want in terms of form and content", The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Debreceny, R., Gray, G.L. and Rahman, A. (2002), "The determinants of Internet financial reporting", Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 21 No. 4-5, pp. 371-395.
Deller, D., Stubenrath, M. and Weber, C. (1999), "A survey on the use of the Internet for investor relations in the USA UK Germany
Ettredge, M., Richardson
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: (and sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll), London
Fisher, R., Oyelere, P. and Laswad, F. (2004), “Corporate reporting on the Internet: Audit issues and content analysis of practices”. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19 (3), 412-439.
Gowthorpe, C. and Flynn, G. (1997), “Reporting on the web: state of the art”. Accountancy: International Edition, 120 (1248), 58-59.
Hail, L. (2002), "The impact of voluntary corporate disclosures on the ex ante cost of capital for Swiss firms", European Accounting Review, Vol. 11 No. 11, pp. 741-773.
Hair, J.F., Anderson Upper Saddle River
Hamid, F.Z.A. (2005), "Malaysian companies’ use of the Internet for investor relations". Corporate Governance, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Hassan, O., Giorgioni, G. and Romilly, P. (2006), "The extent of accounting disclosure and its determinants in an emerging capital market: the case of Egypt", International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-67.
Hedlin, P. (1999), “The Internet as a vehicle for investor relations: The Swedish case”. European Accounting Review, 8 (2), 373-381.
Hossain, M., Perera, M.H.B. & Rahman, A.R. (1995), "Voluntary disclosure in the annual reports of New Zealand companies". Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-87.
Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (1997), A Guide to Computing Statistics with SPSS for Windows, New York
Hussainey, K. and Al-Nodel, A. (2008), "Corporate governance online reporting by Saudi listed companies", Research in Accounting in Emerging Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 39-64.
Hussey, R. and Sowinska, M. (1999), “The risks of financial reports on the Internet”. Accounting & Business, March, 18-19.
Iskander, A., Salama, A. and Dixon, R. (2008), "Categories and determinants of voluntary corporate disclosure: some Egyptian evidence", Working paper, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Ismail, T.H. (2002), "An empirical investigation of factors influencing voluntary disclosure of financial information on the Internet in the GCC Countries", Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=420700.
Kamel, S. and Hussein, M. (2001), "The development of e-commerce: the emerging virtual context within Egypt
Kamel, S. and Hussein, M. (2002), "The emergence of e-commerce in a developing nation", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 146-153.
Lang, M. and Lundholm, R. (1993), "Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures", Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 246-271.
Lang, M.H. and Lundholm, R.J. (1996), "Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behaviour", The Accounting Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 467-492.
Larran, M. and Giner, B. (2002), “The use of the Internet for corporate reporting by Spanish companies”. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 2 (3), 53-82.
Lodhia, S. K., Allam, A. and Lymer, A. (2004), “Corporate reporting on the Internet in Australia: An exploratory study”. Australian Accounting Review, 14 (3), 64 -71.
Louwers, T. J., Pasewark, W. R. and Typpo, E. W. (1996), “The Internet: Changing the way corporations tell their story”. CPA Journal, 6 (11), 24-28.
Lymer, A. (1997), "Corporate reporting via the Internet - a survey of current usage in the UK and discussion of issues", First Financial Reporting and Business Communication Conference, Cardiff
Marston, C. (2003), “Financial reporting on the Internet by leading Japanese companies”. Corporate Communications, 8 (1), 23-27.
Marston, C. and Leow, C. Y. (1998), ”Financial reporting on the Internet by leading UK companies”. The 21st Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association. Antwerp
Marston, C. and Shrives, P. (1991), "The use of disclosure indices in accounting research: a review article", British Accounting Review, Vol. 23, pp. 195-210.
Marston, C. and Polei, A. (2004), "Corporate reporting on the Internet by German companies", International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vo. 5 No. 3, pp. 285-311.
McKinnon, J. and Dalimunthe, L. (1993), "Voluntary disclosure of segment information by Australian diversified companies", Accounting & Finance, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Metwali, T. (2003), "Financial reporting on the Internet: a study on the Egyptian business environment", Egyptian Journal of Commercial Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 273-321.
Mintz, S. (1998), "The Internet as a tool for Egypt
Mohamed, F. (2002), "Financial reporting on the Internet: a survey of Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, and Kuwaiti companies", Journal of Financial and Commercial Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 203- 227.
Mohieldin, M. (2006), "Corporate governance in Egypt
Nafie, I. (2001), "A double dividend", Al-Ahram Weekly On-line, (523), Available at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/523/op1.htm.(accessed on 05/05/2005 ).
Oyeler, P., Laswad, F. and Fisher, R. (2003), "Determinants of Internet financial reporting by New Zealand
Pirchegger, B. and Wagenhofer, A. (1999), "Financial information on the internet: a survey of the homepages of Australian companies", European Accounting Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 383-395.
Raffournier, B. (1995), "The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by Swiss listed companies", European Accounting Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 261-280.
Ragab, A.A. and Omran, M.M. (2006), "Accounting information, value relevance, and investors’ behaviour in the Egyptian equity market", Review of Accounting and Finance, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 279-297.
Ruland, W., Tung, S. and George, N. (1990), “Factors associated with the disclosure of managers' forecasts”. Accounting Review, 65 (7), 10-21.
Street, D.L. and Gray, S.J. (2002), "Factors influencing the extent of corporate compliance with International Accounting Standards: summary of a research monograph", Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, Vol. 11, pp. 51-76.
Trabelsi, S. (2007), “An empirical examination of corporate website as a voluntary disclosure medium”. BAA Annual Conference. Royal Holloway, University of London
Trabelsi, S., Labelle, R. a. and Laurin, C. (2004), “The management of financial disclosure on corporate websites: A conceptual model”. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 3 (2), 235-259.
Wallace, R.S.O., Nasser, K. and Mora, A. (1994), "The relationship between the comprehensive of corporate annual reports and firm characteristics in Spain", Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 97, pp. 41-53.
Watson, A., Shrives, P. and Marston, C. (2002), “Voluntary disclosure of accounting ratios in the UK
Willis, M., Tesnière, B. and Jones, A. (2003), Corporate Communications for the 21st Century; A white paper discussing the impact of Internet technologies on business reporting. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Available at (www.pwcglobal.com/xbrl).
Xiao, Z.Z., Dyson, R.J. and Powell, P.L. (1996), "The impact of information technology on corporate financial reporting: A contingency perspective", British Accounting Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 203-227.
Xiao, J.Z., Yang, H. and Chow, C.W. (2004), "The determinants and characteristics of voluntary Internet-based disclosures by listed Chinese companies", Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 191-225.
Zhang, T., He, Y. and Gao, S.S. (2007), "The determinants of Internet financial reporting: Empirical evidence from China University of London
Table 1 Independent Variables Measures
Hypothesis
|
Expected sign
|
Measures
|
Firm size
|
+
|
Total assets
|
Profitability
|
+
|
Return on equity (Net profit / Equity)
|
Leverage
|
+
|
Total debt / Total assets
|
Liquidity
|
+
|
Current ratio (Current asset / current liability)
|
Auditor Size
|
+
|
=1 for companies that are audited by one of the big 4 audit firm; zero otherwise
|
Foreign listing
|
+
|
=1 for companies that are listing their stock in foreign countries; zero otherwise.
|
Industrial Sector
|
+ or -
|
1= Construction
2= Chemicals
3= Communications
4= Financial Services
5= Food & Beverage
6= Entertainment
7= Textile & Clothing
8= Engineering & Mining
9= Utilities
|
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.853
|
.727
|
.653
|
.17395
|
.727
|
9.837
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
.031
|
.119
|
.256
|
.799
| |||
Total Assets
|
.091
|
.113
|
.091
|
.801
|
.427
|
.442
|
2.264
|
Return on Equity
|
.204
|
.092
|
.204
|
2.207
|
.032*
|
.665
|
1.503
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.069
|
.141
|
.069
|
.487
|
.629
|
.284
|
3.517
|
CA/CL
|
.064
|
.104
|
.064
|
.612
|
.544
|
.520
|
1.923
|
Foreign Listing
|
.191
|
.088
|
.229
|
2.176
|
.035*
|
.512
|
1.951
|
Audit firm type
|
.054
|
.060
|
.092
|
.908
|
.369
|
.551
|
1.813
|
Construction
|
.107
|
.101
|
.134
|
1.060
|
.294
|
.354
|
2.821
|
Chemicals
|
.112
|
.108
|
.113
|
1.038
|
.305
|
.482
|
2.075
|
Communications
|
.519
|
.138
|
.482
|
3.762
|
.000**
|
.346
|
2.889
|
Financial Services
|
.358
|
.106
|
.579
|
3.372
|
.001**
|
.193
|
5.184
|
Food & Beverage
|
-.063
|
.113
|
-.059
|
-.556
|
.581
|
.512
|
1.955
|
Entertainment
|
.074
|
.104
|
.075
|
.711
|
.480
|
.517
|
1.934
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.144
|
.127
|
.105
|
1.135
|
.262
|
.661
|
1.512
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.872(a)
|
.760
|
.694
|
.16273
|
.760
|
11.662
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
-.008
|
.112
|
-.075
|
.941
| |||
Total Assets
|
.170
|
.106
|
.171
|
1.608
|
.114
|
.442
|
2.264
|
Return on Equity
|
.149
|
.086
|
.150
|
1.730
|
.090
|
.665
|
1.503
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.049
|
.132
|
.049
|
.369
|
.714
|
.284
|
3.517
|
CA/CL
|
.063
|
.098
|
.063
|
.642
|
.524
|
.520
|
1.923
|
Foreign Listing
|
.138
|
.082
|
.167
|
1.690
|
.098
|
.512
|
1.951
|
Audit firm type
|
.097
|
.056
|
.166
|
1.742
|
.088
|
.551
|
1.813
|
Construction
|
.174
|
.094
|
.219
|
1.845
|
.071
|
.354
|
2.821
|
Chemicals
|
.193
|
.101
|
.196
|
1.920
|
.061
|
.482
|
2.075
|
Communications
|
.532
|
.129
|
.496
|
4.123
|
.000**
|
.346
|
2.889
|
Financial Services
|
.358
|
.099
|
.580
|
3.596
|
.001**
|
.193
|
5.184
|
Food & Beverage
|
-.005
|
.106
|
-.005
|
-.046
|
.964
|
.512
|
1.955
|
Entertainment
|
.026
|
.097
|
.026
|
.265
|
.792
|
.517
|
1.934
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.199
|
.118
|
.147
|
1.684
|
.099
|
.661
|
1.512
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.801
|
.641
|
.544
|
.19891
|
.641
|
6.596
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
.061
|
.136
|
.449
|
.656
| |||
Total Assets
|
.025
|
.130
|
.025
|
.190
|
.850
|
.442
|
2.264
|
Return on Equity
|
.298
|
.106
|
.299
|
2.819
|
.007**
|
.665
|
1.503
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.121
|
.161
|
.122
|
.750
|
.457
|
.284
|
3.517
|
CA/CL
|
.021
|
.119
|
.021
|
.173
|
.863
|
.520
|
1.923
|
Foreign Listing
|
.278
|
.100
|
.335
|
2.770
|
.008**
|
.512
|
1.951
|
Audit firm type
|
.029
|
.068
|
.050
|
.430
|
.669
|
.551
|
1.813
|
Construction
|
.032
|
.115
|
.041
|
.281
|
.780
|
.354
|
2.821
|
Chemicals
|
.048
|
.123
|
.049
|
.393
|
.696
|
.482
|
2.075
|
Communications
|
.372
|
.158
|
.347
|
2.360
|
.022*
|
.346
|
2.889
|
Financial Services
|
.290
|
.122
|
.469
|
2.382
|
.021*
|
.193
|
5.184
|
Food & Beverage
|
-.073
|
.130
|
-.068
|
-.564
|
.575
|
.512
|
1.955
|
Entertainment
|
.151
|
.119
|
.153
|
1.269
|
.211
|
.517
|
1.934
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.098
|
.145
|
.072
|
.680
|
.500
|
.661
|
1.512
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 5 Normal Score Regression Model of Total Score for 62 Companies
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.834
|
.696
|
.614
|
.5858892
|
.696
|
8.453
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
-.713
|
.261
|
-2.733
|
.009
| |||
Total Assets
|
.072
|
.120
|
.073
|
.603
|
.550
|
.436
|
2.294
|
Return on Equity
|
.235
|
.096
|
.237
|
2.449
|
.018*
|
.677
|
1.478
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.051
|
.133
|
.052
|
.384
|
.702
|
.350
|
2.855
|
CA/CL
|
.052
|
.109
|
.053
|
.477
|
.635
|
.522
|
1.914
|
Foreign Listing
|
.618
|
.298
|
.233
|
2.074
|
.043*
|
.503
|
1.990
|
Audit firm type
|
.101
|
.200
|
.054
|
.506
|
.615
|
.553
|
1.808
|
Construction
|
.341
|
.338
|
.134
|
1.008
|
.318
|
.357
|
2.798
|
Chemicals
|
.214
|
.361
|
.068
|
.592
|
.557
|
.485
|
2.060
|
Communications
|
1.660
|
.474
|
.484
|
3.499
|
.001**
|
.332
|
3.014
|
Financial Services
|
1.030
|
.339
|
.521
|
3.037
|
.004**
|
.215
|
4.650
|
Food & Beverage
|
-.353
|
.379
|
-.103
|
-.931
|
.356
|
.519
|
1.926
|
Entertainment
|
.200
|
.350
|
.063
|
.572
|
.570
|
.516
|
1.938
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.476
|
.424
|
.109
|
1.124
|
.267
|
.670
|
1.493
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.874
|
.764
|
.700
|
.5066906
|
.764
|
11.941
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
-.878
|
.226
|
-3.892
|
.000
| |||
Total Assets
|
.222
|
.103
|
.228
|
2.150
|
.037*
|
.436
|
2.294
|
Return on Equity
|
.151
|
.083
|
.155
|
1.820
|
.075
|
.677
|
1.478
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.002
|
.115
|
.002
|
.017
|
.986
|
.350
|
2.855
|
CA/CL
|
.073
|
.094
|
.075
|
.773
|
.443
|
.522
|
1.914
|
Foreign Listing
|
.322
|
.258
|
.124
|
1.250
|
.217
|
.503
|
1.990
|
Audit firm type
|
.342
|
.173
|
.187
|
1.978
|
.054
|
.553
|
1.808
|
Construction
|
.600
|
.293
|
.241
|
2.051
|
.046*
|
.357
|
2.798
|
Chemicals
|
.571
|
.312
|
.184
|
1.829
|
.074
|
.485
|
2.060
|
Communications
|
1.758
|
.410
|
.522
|
4.284
|
.000**
|
.332
|
3.014
|
Financial Services
|
1.000
|
.293
|
.516
|
3.410
|
.001**
|
.215
|
4.650
|
Food & Beverage
|
.059
|
.328
|
.017
|
.179
|
.859
|
.519
|
1.926
|
Entertainment
|
-.051
|
.303
|
-.017
|
-.169
|
.866
|
.516
|
1.938
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.684
|
.366
|
.160
|
1.867
|
.068
|
.670
|
1.493
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
R
|
R
Square
|
Adjusted R
Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
R square Change
|
F Change
|
Sig. F
| |
.777
|
.604
|
.497
|
.6665766
|
.604
|
5.635
|
.000
| |
Coefficients
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
Constant
|
-.571
|
.297
|
-1.926
|
.060
| |||
Total Assets
|
-.013
|
.136
|
-.013
|
-.096
|
.924
|
.436
|
2.294
|
Return on Equity
|
.311
|
.109
|
.314
|
2.847
|
.006**
|
.677
|
1.478
|
Tdbt/TA
|
.110
|
.152
|
.111
|
.722
|
.474
|
.350
|
2.855
|
CA/CL
|
.026
|
.124
|
.027
|
.212
|
.833
|
.522
|
1.914
|
Foreign Listing
|
.899
|
.339
|
.340
|
2.651
|
.011*
|
.503
|
1.990
|
Audit firm type
|
.105
|
.228
|
.056
|
.462
|
.646
|
.553
|
1.808
|
Construction
|
.028
|
.385
|
.011
|
.074
|
.942
|
.357
|
2.798
|
Chemicals
|
.033
|
.411
|
.011
|
.081
|
.935
|
.485
|
2.060
|
Communications
|
1.054
|
.540
|
.308
|
1.952
|
.057
|
.332
|
3.014
|
Financial Services
|
.803
|
.386
|
.408
|
2.081
|
.043*
|
.215
|
4.650
|
Food & Beverage
|
-.393
|
.431
|
-.115
|
-.911
|
.367
|
.519
|
1.926
|
Entertainment
|
.424
|
.399
|
.134
|
1.063
|
.293
|
.516
|
1.938
|
Textile & Clothing
|
.297
|
.482
|
.068
|
.616
|
.541
|
.670
|
1.493
|
** Significant at the 0.01 level; * Significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 8 Summary of the Ranked and Normal OLS Regression Results
Total Score
|
Total Content
|
Format
| ||||
R
|
N
|
R
|
N
|
R
|
N
| |
Table number
|
7
|
10
|
8
|
11
|
9
|
12
|
Total Assets
|
√
| |||||
Return on Equity
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
| ||
Tdbt/TA
| ||||||
CA/CL
| ||||||
Foreign Listing
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
| ||
Audit firm type
| ||||||
Construction
|
√
| |||||
Chemical
| ||||||
Communication
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
| |
Financial Services
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
√
|
Food & Beverage
| ||||||
Entertainment
| ||||||
Textile & Clothing
| ||||||
Appendix 1. Disclosure index
Disclosure Content Items
|
English Websites
|
Arabic Websites
|
Quarterly Report of Current Year
|
Quarterly Reports of Past Years
|
Semi Annual Report of Current Year
|
Semi Annual Report of Past Years
|
Audit Review Report
|
Current Year Financial Statements
|
Historical Financial Statements
|
Current Year Annual Reports
|
Annual Reports of Past Years
|
Excerpts of Financial Reports or Statements
|
Letter From The Chairman or CEO
|
Chairman or CEO’s Signature or Printed Name
|
Auditor’s Report of Current Year
|
Auditor’s Report of Past Years
|
Auditor’s Signature
|
Auditor’s Name Printed
|
Note on Language Translation and Audit
|
Current Year Balance Sheet
|
Balance Sheet of Past Years
|
Summarized Balance Sheet
|
Current Year Income Statement
|
Income Statement of Past Years
|
Summarized Income Statements
|
Current Year Statement of Cash Flow
|
Past Years’ Statements of Cash Flow
|
Summarized Statement of Cash Flow
|
Appropriation Statement (Statement of Proposed Dividend)
|
Statement Of Changes in Stockholders' Equity
|
Notes to Financial Statements of Current Year
|
Notes to Financial Statements of Past Years
|
Usage of Comparative Figures
|
Summary of Financial Data Over a Period of at Least 3 Years
|
Segmental Reporting by Line of Business (Revenue)
|
Segmental Reporting by Sector (Revenue)
|
GAAP Basis in the Year Reported
|
Disclosure of Risk or Risk Management
|
Earnings Per Share
|
Other Ratios
|
Background or History of the Organisation
|
Forward Looking Information
|
Supplement or Amendment to Current Year Annual Report
|
Past Year Material Events
|
Current Year Material Events
|
Corporate Governance
|
Press Releases
|
Financial Calendar
|
Top 10 Stockholders in Current Year
|
List of BOD Names
|
List of Key Executives Names and Phone No.
|
Historical Share Prices
|
Current Share Prices
|
Share Price Performance in Relation to Stock Market Index
|
Services or Products Provided
|
Sales of Key Products
|
Market Share of Key Products
|
Monthly or Weekly
|
Mailing List
|
Presentation Format Items
|
Contact Us
|
E-Mail
|
Postal Address
|
Telephone Number
|
One Click To Get to Investor Relations or Financial Information
|
E-Mail to Investor Relations or Financial Control Manager
|
Investor Relations Phone Number
|
Investor Relations Postal Address
|
Frequently Asked Questions
|
Internal Search Engines
|
Link to The Stock Exchange Websites
|
Link to Securities Companies’ Websites
|
Link to Parent or Subsidiary
|
Table of Content/Sitemap
|
Hyperlinks Inside the Annual Report
|
PowerPoint or Presentation of Financial Data
|
Financial Data in Excel
|
Financial Data in PDF Format
|
Financial Data in HTML
|
Financial Data in Word
|
Graphics or Diagrams
|
Pull-Down Menu
|
Click-Over Menu
|
Financial Info. Found in More Than
|
Conference Calls
|
Ratings
|
Disclaimer
|
Contact to the Webmaster
|
Use of Frames
|
One Click to Get to Press Releases or News
|
Clear Boundaries for Annual Reports
|
[1] For more information about the Egyptian Stock Exchange, please visit: http://www.egyptse.com/index.asp.
[2] Three recent studies have examined the determinants of corporate disclosure in Egypt
[3] Industry type contains nine sectors in this study. Since only one company belonged to the utilities sector, this sector was not included. This left eight sectors and eight dummy variables, of which one needed to be excluded, since the number of dummy variables should be one less than the number of levels of the nonmeteric variables (Hair et al., 1998). One dummy variable is not used as it would overlap completely with the variation explained by the other dummy variables and this would result in multicollinearity, which should be avoided in multiple regression (Howitt and Cramer, 1997). The exclusion of this one dummy variable will not result in omission of information as it has already been accounted for by the other dummy variables (Howitt and Cramer, 1997). Therefore, it was decided in this study to exclude Engineering and Mining from multiple regression. The seven dummy variables of industries are Construction, Chemicals, Communications, Financial Service, Food and Beverage, Entertainment, and Textile & Clothing. Each variable was given the value of 1 if the company belonged to this particular industry and 0 otherwise.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
ملحوظة: يمكن لأعضاء المدونة فقط إرسال تعليق.