Tamer Elshandidy is a Professor of Accounting and Founding Director of Graduate (MBA and DBA) Programs at the College of Business Administration, Ajman University, UAE, having previously led as a Professor of Accounting and Head of the Accounting and Finance Division at Bradford University School of Management, UK. His academic progression has seen him in roles of Associate and Assistant Professor in Accounting, along with PhD Program Coordinator, at the University of Nottingham and the University of Bristol, UK, respectively. His publications, frequently cited and awarded, appear in top-tier journals, mostly A* and A in ABDC or 3* in ABS. His expertise extends to refereeing for academic journals, funding bodies like the British Academy and the European Science Foundation, and publishers such as Oxford University Press, alongside contributions to faculty promotion in several GCC universities. Professor Elshandidy's editorial role includes Associate Editor for Cogent Business and Management and Editorial Board member for the Journal of Management and Governance. His academic standing is further recognized through his service as an External Examiner for Nottingham and Southampton Universities and an External Assessor for REF 2021 submissions for Newcastle and Durham Business Schools, UK. He has validated academic programs for institutions within the UK and Greece under the Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships (CICP) of the Open University, UK. In addition, he served as the Publicity Officer for the Financial Accounting and Reporting Special Interest Group (FARSIG) under the British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA). Over multiple years, he contributed to the Standing Scientific Committee (SSC) of the European Accounting Association (EAA) Annual Congress and the SSC of FARSIG. He delivered research seminars across the UK, Italy, Poland, and Egypt, showing his international reputation. Professor Elshandidy's comprehensive experience also encompasses supervising and examining graduate dissertations and theses at leading UK universities.
Drawing on faultline theory, this article proposes a multidimensional diversity index (MDI) to measure and assess board diversity. Herein, we contest that diversity needs to be considered across multiple dimensions, or faultlines. Based on the FTSE all-share non-financial firms (2005–2018), the proposed MDI captures the joint effect of differences in director attributes across four faultlines (surface, identity, demographic, and meso-level). After constructing our MDI, we examine how shifts in diversity impact firm risk. Our analysis indicates that moderate levels of diversification (between 0.25 and 0.75) are both typical across our sample and reduce riskiness. At extreme levels of diversification, however, we find that risk increases. We perform further analysis that supports these findings while also showing that, regardless of whether boards are moderately or extremely diversified, their faultline scores are significantly correlated with industry competition and financial risk.
By creating a comprehensive corporate social-and environmental-related lexicon, this paper examines the extent to which board diversity impacts social and environmental disclosures. Contributing to diversity literature, we rely on the faultlines concept, postulated and developed by organizational research, which is hypothetical dividing lines that split a boardroom into relatively homogeneous subgroups based on directors’ diversified attributes. Employing a sample of FTSE All-share non-financial firms, our findings show that firms with higher faultline strength in the boardroom (ie, relatively more homogeneous subgroups) exhibit significantly lower levels of both social and environmental disclosures in their narrative sections of annual reports.
The informativeness of textual risk disclosure (TRD) of financial firms is unexplored in the extant literature. Employing a sample of UK FTSE all-share financial firms, this paper fills this gap in the literature by providing the first empirical evidence on the relationship between TRD and market liquidity. Consistent with the convergence argument for TRD, we find that TRD decreases the financial firms’ market liquidity. However, consistent with the divergence argument for TRD, our further analysis shows that TRD increases the market liquidity of large financial firms. Overall, our results suggest that financial firms’ TRD is informative to market participants. In addition to the practical and policy implications of our results, this paper opens avenues for future research to use our textual method to measure the determinants and use risk information of financial firms in different contexts.
This paper investigates the extent to which firms’ stock prices may incorporate aggregate risk disclosure levels differently depending on its time orientation, whether forward-looking or non-forward-looking. Using a sample period of ten years for the UK FTSE all-share non-financial firms, this paper used price synchronicity to capture stock informativeness and utilized textual analysis of the narrative sections of annual reports to capture aggregate risk disclosure levels and time orientation. Our empirical results suggest that, whereas the UK market does not incorporate aggregate risk disclosure, it does react significantly to the time orientation of the content of risk disclosure. Specifically, we find that non-forward-looking risk disclosure is significantly and negatively associated with stock price synchronicity, suggesting that this disclosure is firm-specific and it is difficult to replace with market-wide factors. However, we also find that forward-looking risk disclosure, is significantly and positively associated with stock price synchronicity, indicating that such disclosure is generic, and it can be replaced by market-wide factors. These results are likely to have theoretical and practical implications because they testify to the importance of considering the content (time orientation) rather than the level of aggregate risk information when observing the informativeness of the narrative sections of annual reports.
This paper examines the impact of governance factors on the effectiveness of credit, market, operational, and aggregate risk disclosures in banks. The study measures the effectiveness of risk management disclosure by assessing the level of compliance with local and international banking regulations in the UAE. By controlling for year-fixed effects and other bank-level factors, the empirical analysis reveals that the influence of governance factors on the effectiveness of risk management disclosure varies depending on the type of risk being addressed (credit, market, operational, and aggregate). Moreover, the paper distinguishes between two prominent banking models, Islamic and Conventional, in line with the UAE’s banking landscape. The results indicate that differences in the effectiveness of risk management disclosure are observed mainly in the context of market risk between Islamic and Conventional banks. These findings hold significant practical implications not only within the UAE but also beyond its borders. By understanding the key governance factors that impact risk management disclosures, banks in the UAE can enhance their risk management practices and compliance with regulations. The insights gained from this paper can guide policymakers, regulators, and industry practitioners in implementing measures to improve risk management effectiveness. Furthermore, the results contribute to the broader academic literature on risk management and governance in the banking sector, offering valuable knowledge for researchers and scholars worldwide.
Purpose Exploiting the mandatory provision of integrated reporting in South Africa, this paper aims to investigate whether this regulatory switch from the conventional annual report is associated with differences in the level of textual risk disclosure (TRD). This paper also examines the economic usefulness of this regulatory change by observing the impact of TRD on the complying firms’ market values. Design/methodology/approach Archival data are collected and examined using time-series difference design and difference-in-differences design. Findings The authors find that the level of TRD within the mandatory integrated reporting is significantly lower than that of annual reports. The authors find that the impact of TRD in integrated reporting on market value compared to that of annual reports is statistically not different from zero. The authors’ further analyses suggest that corporate governance effectiveness is not a moderating factor to the study results. The results are robust to comparisons with the voluntary adoption of integrated reporting in the UK. Originality/value Collectively, the study results suggest that managers’ adherence to the mandatory provision of integrated reporting has significantly decreased the level of (voluntary) TRD they tended to convey within the conventional annual reports, resulting in a trivial impact on market value. These unintended consequences should be of interest to the International Integrated Reporting Council and other bodies interested in integrated reporting.
Upon extracting and quantifying relevant hedge information from the narrative section of European banks annual reports, this paper examines the impact of such information on cost of capital [as measured by weighted average cost of capital (WACC), cost of equity (COE) and cost of debt (COD)]. Using a sample of 1885 bank-year observations from 19 countries, we find that textual hedge disclosure leads to a significant reduction in WACC, COE, and COD; thus explains a substantial portion of variation in cost of capital. Further, we find that these results are stronger in countries with high corruption and financial openness. Our results are robust to several controls and model specification. Collectively, our findings enrich prior evidence which examines the economic consequences of hedge disclosure.