Results Does graph disclosure bias reduce the cost of equity capital

June of t+1, requiring, at least, 12 monthly return observations. Leverage LEV We measure leverage as the ratio between long- term debt and the market value of equity at 31 December of year t. Modigliani and Miller 1958 predict that the cost of equity should be in- creasing in the amount of debt in the financial structure of the company. This prediction is sup- ported by results of studies such as those by Gebhardt et al. 2001 or Botosan and Plumlee 2005. In line with previous literature we expect to find a positive relationship between leverage and the cost of equity capital. Book-to-price ratio BP This is the ratio between book value of equity and market value of equity at 31 December of year t. Prior research documents a positive association between the book-to-price ratio and average re- alised returns e.g. Fama and French, 1993 and Davis et al., 2000 as well as different ex-ante measures of the cost of equity e.g. Gebhardt et al., 2001 and Botosan and Plumlee, 2005. These re- sults are interpreted as evidence that the book-to- price ratio proxies for risk. Volatility of profitability V_NI Based on practitioners’ consideration of the vari- ability of earnings, Gebhardt et al. 2001 argue that this variable can be regarded as a source of risk. In our study, the volatility of the profitability of the firm is calculated as the standard deviation of net income scaled by mean of net income over a period of five years ending at December of year t. Growth GROWTH Following Francis et al. 2005 we control for the recent growth experienced by the company meas- ured as the log of 1 plus the percentage change in the book value of equity along year t. Disclosure RINDEX Finally, to test whether there is an interaction be- tween graph distortion and disclosure H2, we in- troduce a measure of overall corporate disclosure. The relationship between corporate disclosure and the cost of equity is widely documented in the lit- erature e.g. Botosan and Plumlee, 2002; Espinosa and Trombetta, 2007; Francis et al., 2008. As an indicator of the information provided by the company we use the disclosure index published annually by the business magazine Actualidad Económica . This index is based on the information disclosed by companies in their annual reports. These reports are reviewed by the panel of experts who assign a score to a list of information items. For each company, the scores for each item are then added up to obtain a global score intended to represent the disclosure policy of the entity. Finally, the disclosure index is calculated as the ratio between the actual score of the company and the maximum possible score. Similar to Botosan and Plumlee 2002 or Nikolaev and Van Lent 2005, we use fractional ranks of the annual re- port indexes. Firms are ranked from 1 to N for each year and then the rank of each firm is divid- ed by the total number of firms in this year to ob- tain the fractional ranks. Table 2 provides a summary of the definition and data source of variables used in our analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3, where it can be seen that companies in our sample make wide use of graphs in their annual reports. At least one graph is included by 92 of the compa- nies and the mean number of graphs per annual re- port GRAPH is 16. These figures are similar to those observed for other countries e.g. Beattie and Jones, 2001. Although not reported in Table 3, mean RGDFAV is higher than 2.5 for 38 of the companies included in our study; that is, more than one third of the companies in our sample have favourably distorted the graphs included in their annual reports above the cut-off point chosen as an indication of material distortion. Unfavourable distortions are less frequent; mean RGDUNF is higher than 2.5 for 11 of the companies in our sample. The correlation matrix presented in Table 4 shows that our ex-ante measure of the cost of eq- uity is significantly correlated with all the risk proxies included in our study. As expected, the cost of equity is positively related to beta, book-to- price ratio, leverage and earnings variability and negatively related to growth and the number of es- timates that acts also as a proxy for corporate size. Table 4 also shows a significant negative correla- tion between the cost of equity and our indicators of graph distortion. 4.2. Multivariate analysis 4.2.1. Ex-ante measure of the cost of equity R PEG_PREM This section presents the results obtained for the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity i.e. the RPEG measure as developed by Easton, 2004. To asses the validity of this measure, we start our analysis by estimating a model similar to that de- veloped by Botosan and Plumlee 2005 and used to test the relation between the cost of capital and a number of indicators of firm risk. We estimate the following equation: R PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it 1 + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + e it , Vol. 39 No. 2. 2009 91 Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 92 ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS RESEARCH Table 2 Definition of variables Variables Definitions and data source Dependent variables R PEG_PREM Estimated risk premium calculated as the R PEG in Easton 2004 less the risk-free rate source JCF database. R PEF_PREM Estimated risk premium calculated as the R PEF in Easton and Monahan 2005 less the risk-free rate source JCF database. R MPEG_PREM Estimated risk premium calculated as the R MPEG in Easton 2004 less the risk-free rate source JCF database. R AVRG_PREM Estimated risk premium calculated as the average of R PEF , R PEG , and R MPEG less the risk- free rate source JCF database. R jm – R fm Monthly excess return for firm j source JCF database. Independent variables GRAPH Total number of graphs in the annual report of year t source corporate annual reports. RRGDFAV Fractional rank of RGDFAV. RGDFAV is mean favourable Relative Graph Discrepancy RGD index across all graphs in the annual report. This index measures graph distortion and 0 means no distortion or distortion that is unfavourable to the company source cor- porate annual reports. RRGDUNF Fractional rank of RGDUNF. RGDUNF is mean unfavourable Relative Graph Discrepancy RGD index across all graphs in the annual report. This index measures graph distortion and 0 means no distortion or distortion that is favourable to the compa- ny source corporate annual reports. RRGDFFAV Fractional rank of RGDFFAV. RGDFFAV is mean favourable RGD of financial graphs source corporate annual reports. RRGDRFAV Fractional rank of RGDRFAV. RGDRFAV is mean unfavourable RGD of non-financial graphs source corporate annual reports. R Mm – R fm Monthly excess return on the market portfolio source JCF database. RGDFAVfactor m Return to the graph distortion factor mimicking portfolio source JCF database. Control variables NEST Number of analysts’ estimations of one-year-ahead EPS source JCF database. BETA Capital market beta estimated via the market model with a minimum of 12 monthly re- turns over the 60 months prior to June of year t+1 source JCF database. BP Book value of equity scaled by market value of equity source OSIRIS database. LEV Long-term debt scaled by market value of equity source OSIRIS database. V_NI Standard deviation of net income scaled by mean net income over a period of five years ending at December of year t source OSIRIS database . GROWTH Log of 1 plus the percentage change in the book value of equity along year t source OSIRIS database. ROA Return on total assets source OSIRIS database. CDA Current discretionary accruals estimated by using the model developed by Dechow and Dichev 2002 as modified by McNichols 2002 source OSIRIS database. RINDEX Fractional rank of the disclosure index prepared by the business magazine Actualidad Económica for year t source business magazine Actualidad Económica. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 where: R PREM = Proxy for the equity risk premium = R PEG – R f R f = the risk-free rate, proxied by the interest rate on five-year Spanish Treasury bills. The rest of the variables are defined in Table 2. We estimate all our models using the fixed ef- fects technique. The importance of using proper panel data estimation techniques when dealing with financial pooled data has been stressed by Nikolaev and Van Lent 2005 and Petersen 2005. If a simple OLS method is used to com- pute the estimated coefficients, their significance is very likely to be overstated. A traditional way to correct for this problem is to estimate yearly regressions and then take the average of the esti- mated coefficients, evaluating the statistical signif- icance of these estimates by using the Fama-Macbeth t-statistic. This corrects for cross- sectional dependence, but not for time depend- ence. Nikolaev and Van Lent 2005 show how important firm effects can be when studying cost of capital determinants for a pooled sample of companies. This is our reason for estimating our model by using the fixed effects technique. 23 Results of estimating equation 1 are presented in Table 5, Panel B Model 1. The coefficients of the number of estimates, leverage, and variability of profitability have the expected sign and are sta- tistically significant. The fact that the coefficients of beta and the book-to-price ratio are not statisti- cally significantly different from zero could be due to the use of the fixed effect estimation technique. Beta and the book-to-price are risk factors that are specific for each company. Given that with the adopted estimation technique a specific intercept is estimated for each company, it is highly likely that the effect of these variables is already cap- tured by these constants. Overall, our results con- firm those already obtained for the Spanish market by Espinosa and Trombetta 2007 and support the validity of the measure of the cost of equity capi- tal and the choice of the control variables. We now move on to the main part of our empir- ical study and insert in our specification the indi- cators of mean favourable and unfavourable graph distortion across all graphs included in the annual report. Specifically, we now estimate the following equation Model 2: R PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it 2 + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RRGDUNF it + ε it All variables are defined in Table 2. We now find that favourable graph distortion is significantly and negatively related to the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity. A negative coeffi- cient is also observed for unfavourable graph dis- tortion but results show that it is insignificantly different from zero. These results suggest that favourably distorted graphs introduce a bias on users’ perceptions. According to our results, annu- al report users perceive a better image of corporate performance when the annual report includes Vol. 39 No. 2. 2009 93 Table 3 Descriptive statistics Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum 25th perc. 50th perc. 75th perc. R PEG_PREM 5.972 4.448 –0.693 25.031 3.134 5.128 7.682 NEST 15.927 9.103 1 40 9 16 21 BETA 1.125 0.549 0.034 4.594 0.773 1.038 1.348 BP 0.637 0.403 0.049 3.018 0.362 0.558 0.818 LEV 0.398 0.603 6.315 0.065 0.221 0.469 V_NI 0.579 1.646 –2.670 19.930 0.180 0.320 0.558 GROWTH 0.103 0.235 –1.769 1.515 0.013 0.079 0.148 GRAPH 16.087 15.461 84 4.25 12 23 RGDFAV 0.106 0.307 3.685 0.095 RGDUNF 0.012 0.062 0.878 RGDFFAV 0.108 0.326 3.685 0.068 RGDRFAV 0.043 0.151 1.5 ROA 6.273 5.820 –21.190 28.100 2.680 5.145 8.150 CDA 0.021 0.065 –0.318 0.238 –0.011 0.017 0.048 INDEX 0.637 0.150 0.230 0.960 0.550 0.630 0.750 The sample consists of 259 firm-year observations for the period 1996–2002. The definition of variables is pro- vided in Table 2. 23 However, at least for our main analysis, we also provide the results obtained by running an OLS regression on the pooled sample. These results can be found in Table 4, Panel A. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 94 A CCO U N T IN G A N D BU S IN E S S RE S E A RCH Table 4 Correlation matrix R PEG_PREM NEST BETA BP LEV V_NI GROWTH RGDFAV RGDUNF RGDFFAV RGDRFAV ROA CDA NEST –0.200 0.001 BETA 0.222 –0.124 0.000 0.046 BP 0.379 –0.329 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.112 LEV 0.172 0.161 0.023 0.417 0.006 0.009 0.707 0.000 V_NI 0.192 –0.121 0.168 0.091 –0.020 0.002 0.053 0.007 0.144 0.745 GROWTH –0.165 0.104 –0.011 –0.193 –0.028 0.088 0.008 0.093 0.854 0.002 0.651 0.159 RGDFAV –0.175 0.172 0.031 –0.036 0.081 –0.096 0.014 0.005 0.005 0.616 0.559 0.195 0.122 0.822 RGDUNF –0.077 0.180 –0.014 –0.073 0.095 –0.041 0.066 0.339 0.217 0.004 0.825 0.243 0.127 0.516 0.291 0.000 RGDFFAV –0.202 0.112 0.025 –0.048 0.034 –0.086 0.089 0.872 0.276 0.001 0.073 0.689 0.444 0.590 0.168 0.152 0.000 0.000 RGDRFAV –0.102 0.268 –0.004 –0.024 0.131 –0.057 –0.101 0.597 0.311 0.301 0.103 0.000 0.955 0.698 0.036 0.357 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.000 ROA –0.250 0.065 –0.153 –0.343 –0.543 –0.012 0.213 –0.046 –0.111 –0.010 –0.054 0.000 0.298 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.853 0.001 0.456 0.073 0.871 0.387 CDA 0.093 –0.088 0.007 0.062 0.076 –0.081 0.002 0.131 –0.021 0.090 0.071 0.166 0.163 0.191 0.920 0.356 0.259 0.225 0.976 0.050 0.754 0.177 0.288 0.013 RINDEX –0.220 0.466 –0.003 –0.064 0.247 –0.055 0.010 0.212 0.238 0.170 0.283 –0.323 –0.143 0.000 0.000 0.959 0.304 0.000 0.375 0.876 0.001 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.032 Table reports Spearman correlations. Significance levels are shown in brackets. The definition of variables is provided in Table 2. graphs that have been distorted to portray a more favourable view of the company. The same is true if we focus our attention only on financial graphs RRGDFFAV, as we do in Model 3. These results support our hypothesis H1. The information repre- sented in graphs is usually included in the financial statements or other parts of the annual report. However, users get a different picture of the com- pany when the annual report includes favourably distorted graphs. These results are consistent with the experimental evidence of the impact of im- properly constructed graphs on subjects’ choices provided by Arunachalam et al. 2002. They ob- serve that students’ decisions are affected by graph design. We extend these results by showing that, in a real setting, experts’ analysts’ forecasts are biased because of distorted graphs included in annual reports. We test the robustness of these results to the choice of the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity and to the inclusion of additional control variables. As for the proxy for the cost of equity, we calcu- late two alternative measures: R PEF and R MPEG . The definition of these measures is given in the appen- Vol. 39 No. 2. 2009 95 Table 5 Regression of the ex-ante measure of cost of equity R PEG_PREM on risk proxies and graph distortion Model 1: R PEG_PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + ε it Model 2: R PEG_PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RRGDUNF it + ε it Model 3: R PEG_PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 9 RRGDFFAV it + β 10 RRGDRFAV it + ε it Panel A: Pooled OLS regression Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Intercept 4.382 0.000 4.936 0.000 5.101 0.000 NEST –0.059 0.039 –0.051 0.091 –0.057 0.064 LEV 1.149 0.128 1.122 0.145 1.136 0.143 V_NI 0.096 0.325 0.075 0.435 0.083 0.403 BETA 0.791 0.149 0.892 0.105 0.895 0.096 BP 2.089 0.010 2.111 0.010 2.053 0.011 GROWTH –2.172 0.087 –2.131 0.097 –1.839 0.160 RRGDFAV –1.721 0.072 RRGDUNF 0.162 0.900 RRGDFFAV –2.604 0.005 RRGDRFAV 0.910 0.530 Adj. R 2 0.135 0.138 0.149 Panel B. Fixed effects regressions Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val NEST –0.147 0.011 –0.130 0.027 –0.126 0.032 LEV 2.537 0.004 2.491 0.005 2.516 0.005 V_NI 0.264 0.022 0.270 0.021 0.279 0.018 BETA –0.378 0.453 –0.271 0.593 –0.293 0.567 BP –0.109 0.912 –0.127 0.897 –0.182 0.851 GROWTH 0.160 0.867 0.208 0.831 0.296 0.766 RRGDFAV –2.351 0.013 RRGDUNF –0.182 0.828 RRGDFFAV –2.230 0.015 RRGDRFAV –1.032 0.260 Adj. R 2 0.547 0.554 0.555 The sample consists of 259 firm-year observations for the period 1996–2002. The definition of variables is pro- vided in Table 2. Estimates of the firm-specific constant terms are omitted for readability. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 dix. We also use the average R AVRG of the three proxies calculated in our study. Additionally, we check if our results are driven by factors such as corporate performance or accruals quality. Prior literature documents a positive association be- tween corporate performance and graph distortion e.g. Beattie and Jones, 1999, 2000. Therefore, the effect of graph distortion on the cost of equity that we observe in this study could be driven by the fact that distorting companies are also those with the highest performance. Hence, we add a measure of corporate performance i.e. ROA as a control variable. Second, Francis et al. 2005 and Francis et al. 2008 show the existence of a posi- tive relationship between the cost of equity capital and the poor quality of accruals. The negative re- lationship between graph distortion and the cost of equity observed in this study could be reflecting this association. Therefore, we test for the robust- ness of our results by adding a measure of accruals quality i.e. discretionary accruals to our model CDA. 24 Table 6 reports the results of these sensitivity analyses and shows that the effect of favourable graph distortion on the ex-ante cost of equity is ro- bust to the choice of the measure of the cost of eq- uity. Favourable graph distortion is found to be negatively and significantly related to all the alter- native measures of the ex-ante cost of equity cal- culated in our study. Additionally, we observe that, although corporate performance and accruals qual- ity can be highly significant variables in explain- ing the ex-ante cost of equity, its inclusion in the model does not qualitatively change our results. That is, the effect of favourable graph distortion on the ex-ante measures of the cost of equity remains. Interaction analysis To investigate whether the relationship between graph distortion and the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity varies depending on the overall level of disclosure, as stated in our second hypothesis, we introduce a measure of the voluntary informa- tion provided by the company in their annual re- port RINDEX and an interaction term between disclosure and graph distortion. Specifically, we estimate the following equation: R PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it 3 + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RINDEX it + β 9 RRGDFAV it RINDEX it + ε it All variables are defined in Table 2. Table 7, Panel A presents the results of the esti- mation of Equation 3. Consistent with the results reported previously, the coefficient on RRGDFAV is found to be negative and significant. A negative relationship is also observed between the overall level of disclosure and the cost of equity, although it is not significant at conventional levels. Finally, the interaction term is positive and significant, which means that graph distortion and disclosure interact in shaping their effects on the cost of equi- ty. Since the sign of the interaction term is posi- 96 ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS RESEARCH Table 6 Regression of the cost of equity on risk proxies and graph distortion using fixed effects R PREM it+1 = αi + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 9 ROA it + β 10 CDA it + ε it Panel A Panel B Panel C Panel D R PEG_PREM R PEF_PREM R MPEG_PREM R AVRG_PREM Variable Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val NEST –0.121 0.029 –0.177 0.000 –0.085 0.111 –0.125 0.003 LEV 1.590 0.075 1.032 0.071 1.847 0.046 1.410 0.021 V_NI 0.168 0.280 –0.020 0.800 0.082 0.578 0.094 0.314 BETA –0.454 0.350 –1.191 0.012 –0.689 0.193 –0.892 0.049 BP 0.510 0.701 0.971 0.253 0.774 0.573 0.692 0.451 GROWTH 1.082 0.287 0.748 0.299 1.150 0.283 0.726 0.307 RRGDFAV –2.232 0.012 –1.327 0.041 –2.645 0.002 –2.296 0.001 ROA –0.334 0.000 –0.037 0.378 –0.327 0.000 –0.172 0.000 CDA 3.090 0.277 5.413 0.010 5.793 0.049 5.296 0.014 Adj. R 2 0.630 0.599 0.653 0.659 The sample consists of 259 firm-year observations for the period 1996–2002. The definition of variables is pro- vided in Table 2. Estimates of the firm-specific constant terms are omitted for readability. 24 To obtain this measure we use the model developed by Dechow and Dichev 2002 as modified by McNichols 2002. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 tive, results indicate that the effect of graph distor- tion on the cost of equity is moderated by the level of overall disclosure. Stated in other words, the ef- fect of graph distortion on the cost of equity is par- tially or eventually completely offset by its interaction with the overall level of disclosure. To get a clearer picture of the interaction between graph distortion and disclosure we dichotomise the RINDEX variable and estimate the following equation: R PREM it+1 = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it 4 + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RINDEX_D it + β 9 RRGDFAV it RINDEX_D it + ε it where all the variables are defined as before except for: RINDEX_D = A dichotomy variable which, in Panel B C, takes the value of one 1 when the value of the RINDEX is in the top 50 33 per- centile of the distribution of this variable, and a value of zero 0 otherwise. Results of this estimation are presented in Table 7, Panels B and C. Since the selection of the cut- off point used to dichotomise the RINDEX vari- able is arbitrary, Table 7 reports the results obtained by using two different cut-off points. In panel B, the set of high disclosers comprises those companies the disclosure index of which is above the median, while in Panel C high disclosers are those firms falling in the top 33 percentile of the distribution of the RINDEX variable. Consistent with the results presented in Panel A, we find that the cost of equity is negatively associ- ated with RRGDFAV and positively related to the interaction term. The dichotomisation of the vari- able RINDEX facilitates the interpretation of the results. When RINDEX_D takes the value of zero 0, the relationship between graph distortion and the cost of equity is given by β 7 and is negative, both in Panels B and C. This means that for low disclosers, graph distortion is negatively related to the cost of equity. However, when RINDEX_D takes the value of one 1, the effect of graph dis- tortion is given by the addition of the coefficients on RRGDFAV and the interaction term i.e. β 7 + β 9 . This addition results in a negative figure –0.413 in Panel B, which is much lower than the coefficient on RRGDFAV, and a positive figure 0.962 in Panel C. Thus, for transparent compa- nies, disclosure partially removes the effect of graph distortion Panel B or even transforms it into a positive effect Panel C. These results indi- cate that disclosure moderates the relationship be- tween graph distortion and the cost of equity and provide support for our second hypothesis. Furthermore, differences between Panels B and C indicate that the moderating effect is increasing in Vol. 39 No. 2. 2009 97 Table 7 Regression of the cost of equity on risk proxies, graph distortion, and disclosure using fixed effects Model 1: R PEG_PREM it+1 Panel A = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RINDEX it + β 9 RRGDFAV it RINDEX it + ε it Model 2: R PEG_PREM it+1 Panels B–C = α i + β 1 NEST it + β 2 LEV it + β 3 V_NI it + β 4 BETA it + β 5 BP it + β 6 GROWTH it + β 7 RRGDFAV it + β 8 RINDEX_D it + β 9 RRGDFAV it RINDEX_D it + ε it Panel A Panel B Panel C Variable Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val NEST –0.148 0.032 –0.148 0.028 –0.153 0.022 LEV 2.433 0.001 2.456 0.001 2.495 0.001 V_NI 0.284 0.050 0.266 0.066 0.276 0.058 BETA –0.350 0.555 –0.345 0.564 –0.161 0.786 BP –0.202 0.829 –0.147 0.876 –0.135 0.885 GROWTH 0.181 0.856 0.111 0.911 0.237 0.809 RRGDFAV –6.227 0.002 –4.198 0.003 –3.909 0.002 RINDEX –4.204 0.099 RRGDFAVRINDEX 8.106 0.024 RINDEX_D –1.517 0.178 –2.093 0.143 RRGDFAVRINDEX_D 3.785 0.058 4.871 0.028 Adj. R 2 0.564 0.561 0.565 The sample consists of 259 firm-year observations for the period 1996–2002. The definition of variables is pro- vided in Table 2. Estimates of the firm-specific constant terms are omitted for readability. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 the level of disclosure, so that when transparency is sufficiently high, the relationship between graph distortion and the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity becomes positive. Results suggest that while at low levels of transparency graph distor- tion remains undetected, high levels of disclosure uncover graph distortion, which results in an in- crease in the risk perceived by users. Hence, users’ predictions can only be potentially affected by graph distortion when the level of information pro- vided by the company is low. So far we have used an ex-ante measure of the cost of equity based on analysts’ estimations of earnings per share. Hence, our results could be in- terpreted as evidence that graph distortion affects users’ analysts’ perceptions of corporate per- formance. However, it is important to check that the market is able to correct individuals’ biases. With this aim, in the next section we present the results obtained using average ex-post returns as a proxy for the cost of equity. 4.2.2. Ex-post measure of the cost of equity stock returns As a starting point in our ex-post analysis, we es- timate a one-factor asset-pricing model for each of the 68 companies in our sample. 25 The average co- efficients and adjusted R’s squared of these esti- mations are presented in Table 8 Model 1. Results show a mean beta of 0.84 and a mean ad- justed R-squared of 26.4. We proceed by adding a factor aimed at representing favourable graph distortion RGDFAVfactor. Specifically, we esti- mate the following equation: R jm – R fm = a j + b j R Mm – R fm 5 + c j RGDFAVfactor m + ε jm where: R jm – R fm = monthly excess return for firm j. R Mm – R fm = monthly excess return on the market portfolio RGDFAVfactor m = return to the graph distortion factor mimicking portfolio Average coefficients obtained from firm- specific estimations of Equation 5 are reported in Table 8 Model 2. Results show that stock returns are not affected by the distortion of graphs includ- ed in the annual report. The coefficient of the RGDFAV factor is negative but it is insignificant- ly different from zero. Hence, we find support for our hypothesis H3. Results unreported are simi- lar when we construct the RGDFAV factor relay- ing on favourably distorted graphs representing financial variables. Although these variables might exert a higher influence on users’ decisions than non-financial variables, results show that stock re- turns are not affected by the distortion of financial graphs. These results are in accordance with the EMH and suggest that decision makers at the ag- gregated level are able to see through distortion. Their decisions cannot be biased by means of ‘rosy’ graphs depicting a much more favourable view of corporate performance than that reflected in the fi- nancial statements. Nonetheless, results presented in the previous section show the existence of a negative and significant relationship between favourable graph distortion and the ex-ante meas- ure of the cost of equity. One way to explain these apparently contradicting findings is that individu- als’ perceptions can be biased because of distorted graphs, but the aggregation process performed by the stock market leads to unbiased decisions. Prior research shows that the aggregation of individual’s predictions leads to higher levels of accuracy e.g. Solomon, 1982 and Chalos, 1985. Furthermore, 98 ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS RESEARCH Table 8 Firm-specific regressions of stock returns on the market portfolio and the graph distortion factor Model 1: R jm – R fm = a j + b j R Mm – R fm + ε jm Model 2: R jm – R fm = a j + b j R Mm – R fm + c j RGDFAVfactor m + ε jm Model 1 Model 2 Variable Coeff. P-val Coeff. P-val Constant 0.004 0.529 0.005 0.520 R Mm – R fm 0.836 0.020 0.851 0.012 RGDFAVfactor m –0.130 0.326 R-squared 0.264 0.296 The table reports the average coefficient estimates obtained from the estimation of the asset-pricing models for each company included in our sample. A minimum of 18 monthly stock returns for the period June 1997 to May 2004 is required. The definition of variables is provided in Table 2. 25 A minimum of 18 monthly returns is required in these es- timations. Downloaded by [Universitas Dian Nuswantoro], [Ririh Dian Pratiwi SE Msi] at 20:11 29 September 2013 Easton and Sommers 2007 provide evidence showing that the market undoes the optimistic bias in analysts’ forecasts. Therefore, the possibility ex- ists that analysts’ estimations of earnings per share the base for the ex-ante measure of the cost of equity are influenced by graph distortion, even though stock prices resulting from the aggregation of a large number of decisions are not biased by distorted graphs. To further investigate this issue, following Easton and Sommers 2007, we recalculate the R PEG measure using realised earnings instead of analysts’ earnings forecasts. By doing so the R PEG measure becomes an ex-ante measure of the cost of equity based on perfect foresight, since it is not based on estimations but on realised earnings. We re-estimate Equation 2 using this measure as the dependent variable. Unreported results, available from the authors, show that this measure of the cost of equity is not affected by graph distortion. Even when we focus our attention on financial graphs we do not observe any significant relation- ship between graph distortion and this perfect fore- sight measure of the cost of equity. These results corroborate the intuition gathered from previous analyses. Individuals’ analysts’ perceptions are biased and distorted graphs affect this bias, but the market is able to correct these misperceptions. Once this bias in expectations is removed, the ef- fect of graph distortion on the cost of equity disap- pears. Our results are consistent with those reported in previous experimental studies showing that individuals’ perceptions are affected by graph distortion e.g. Beattie and Jones, 2002 and Arunachalam et al., 2002. We extend these results by providing evidence of the effect of graph distor- tion on individuals’ analysts’ estimations in a real setting, instead of a controlled experiment. Additionally, we show that the bias in individuals’ expectations is corrected in the capital market. Hence, despite the efforts made by companies to create a more favourable impression on users, we provide evidence showing that the aggregated market response is not biased by distorted graphs.

5. Conclusions