Mandatory and voluntary segment disclosures of listed companies in Nigeria: A recursive transition matrix analysis
-
Author(s)Dolapo Faith SuleLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-5844
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.22(2).2025.14
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2025, Issue #2, pp. 169-179
- 14 Views
-
5 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Mandatory and voluntary segment disclosure is crucial for shareholders to assess a firm’s financial health and make informed investment decisions. Given the importance of disclosure to investors, this study investigates the extent of voluntary and mandatory segment disclosure of listed companies in Nigeria from 2015 to 2022. Using descriptive analysis, specifically a recursive transition matrix approach, this study tracked yearly changes in mandatory and voluntary segment disclosure for 85 companies listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group. The findings revealed that mandatory segment disclosure has a mean score of 11.3, which is notably higher than the mean score of 6.86 for voluntary segment disclosure. Also, the recursive transition matrix revealed a notable increase in companies transitioning from lower to higher levels of mandatory segment disclosures. For instance, 87.5% of companies were at Level 1 (Low-level disclosure) in 2016, but this dropped to 35.4% by 2022, showing a shift to higher levels. Levels L2, L3, and L4 remained relatively stable, indicating sustained improvements. This trend reflects the impact of regulatory changes on the increased transparency of companies in Nigeria. For voluntary segment disclosures, in 2016, 72.5% of companies were at L1, 25% moved to L2, and 2.5% advanced to L3. By 2022, the percentages were 41.1% at L1, 34% at L2, and 24.9% at L3. Although some companies have progressed, many continue to maintain low levels of voluntary segment disclosure. The study concluded that listed companies in Nigeria need to improve their voluntary segment disclosures to enhance transparency and address investors’ concerns about inadequate segment disclosure practices among firms.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M41, M14, M40
-
References51
-
Tables3
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Descriptive statistics of firms’ mandatory, voluntary, and total segment disclosures
- Table 2. Transition matrix of extent of mandatory segment disclosure using the recursive method
- Table 3. Transition matrix of the extent of voluntary segment disclosure using the recursive method
-
- Aboud, A., Roberts, C., & Zalata, A. (2018). The impact of IFRS 8 on financial analysts’ earnings forecast errors: EU evidence. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 33(1), 2-17.
- Akerlof, G. A. (1995). The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Essential Readings in Economics, 175-188.
- Alfaraih, M. M., & Alanezi, F. S. (2011). What explains variation in segment reporting? Evidence from Kuwait. International Business and Economics Research Journal (IBER), 10(7), 31-46.
- Andre, P., Filip, A., & Moldovan, R. (2016). Segment disclosure quantity and quality under IFRS 8: Determinant and the effects on financial analysts’ earnings forecast errors. The International Journal of Accounting, 51(4), 443-461.
- Atika, A., Utami, E. R., & Simamora A. J. (2023). Does managerial ability affect segment disclosure? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Accountancy and Investment, 24(1), 169-186.
- Becerra, M., & Santalo, J. (2006). Diversification versus specialist drives the diversification-performance relationship. Journal of Management Research, Emerald Insight, 4(1), 23-34.
- Bello, S. (2016, May 23). Nigerian stock exchange delists eight companies over rules violation. African Markets.
- Bens, D. A., Berger, P. G., & Monahan, S. J. (2011). Discretionary disclosure in financial reporting: an examination comparing internal firm data to externally reported segment data. Journal of Accounting Review, 86(2), 417-449.
- Berger, P., & Hann, R. (2003). The impact of SFAS No. 131 on information and monitoring. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 163-223.
- Berger, P., & Hann, R. (2007). Segment profitability and the proprietary and agency costs of disclosure. The Accounting Review, 82, 869-906.
- Bhimavarapu, V. M., Rastogi, S., & Kanoujiya, J. (2023). Ownership concentration and its influence on transparency and disclosures of banks in India. Corporate Governance, 23(1), 18-42.
- Blanco, B., Juan M., Lara, G., & Tribó J. (2015). The relation between segment disclosure and earnings quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(5), 449-469.
- Botosan, C. (2000). Evidence that greater disclosure lowers the cost of equity capital. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 12(4) 60-69.
- Botosan, C. A. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of capital. The Accounting Review, 72(3), 323-349.
- Botosan, C. A., & Stanford, M. (2005). Managers motives to withhold segment disclosure and the effect of SFAS No. 131 on analysts’ information environment. The Accounting Review, 80(3), 751-772.
- Navigating the intricate relationship between investments and global output: A Leontief matrix case study of Romania. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(12), 521.
- Cereola, S. J, & Dynowska, J. (2022). The impact of IFRS-8, segment reporting, on the disclosure practices of Polish listed companies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 47.
- Chichernea, D. C., Schaberl, P. D., & Thevenot, M. A. (2024). Cutting through complexity: segment disclosure and pricing efficiency. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 39(3), 643-672.
- Cho, Y. J. (2015). Segment disclosure transparency and internal capital market efficiency: evidence from SFAS No 131. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(4), 669-723.
- Cohen, S. I. (2000). Growth and distribution in Russia and China: A social accounting matrix analysis. International Advances in Economic Research, 8, 296-304.
- Domínguez, M. A. Á. (2012). Company characteristics and human resource disclosure in Spain. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1), 4-20.
- Elsayed, N., Ammar, S., & Mardini, G. H. (2019). The impact of ERP utilization experience and segmental reporting on corporate performance in the UK context. Enterprise Information Systems, 15(1), 61-86.
- Ferrari, G., Jiménez, J. M., & Secondi, L. (2021). The role of tourism in China’s economic system and growth. A social accounting matrix (SAM)-based analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 252-272.
- Gietzmann, M., & Ireland, J. (2005). Cost of capital, strategic disclosures and accounting choice. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 32(3-4), 599-634.
- Gisbert, A., Navallas, B., & Romero, D. (2024). From IAS 14 to IFRS 8: the role of proprietary and agency costs in shaping financial reporting. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 53(4), 451–474.
- Hail, L. (2000). The impact of voluntary corporate disclosures on the ex-ante cost of capital for Swiss companies. The European Accounting Review, 11(4), 741-773.
- Healy, P. M., Hutton, A. P. & Palepu, K. G. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosure. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(3), 485-520.
- Heo, K., & Doo, S. (2018). Segment reporting level and analyst forecast accuracy. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 34(3), 471-486.
- Hollie, D. (2015). A perspective on segment reporting choices and segment reconciliations. Journal of Applied Finance and Accounting, 1(2), 88-95.
- Hope, O. K., & Thomas, W. B. (2008). Managerial empire building and firm disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 591-626.
- Hope, O., Kang, T., Thomas, W., & Vasvar, F. (2009). The effects of SFAS 131 geographic segment disclosures by U.S. multinational companies on the valuation of foreign earnings. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 421-443.
- Ibrahim, K. (2014). Firm characteristics and voluntary segments disclosure among the largest companies in Nigeria. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(4).
- International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS. (2006). IFRS 8: Operating Segments.
- Kobbi-Fakhfakh, S., Shabou, R. M., & Pigé, B. (2019). Intensive board monitoring, investor protection and segment disclosure quality: evidence from EU. Accounting in Europe, 17(1), 52-77.
- Lang, M., & Sul, E. (2014). Linking industry concentration to proprietary costs and disclosure: challenges and opportunities, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 265-274.
- Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-sectional determinants of analysts’ ratings of corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 246-271.
- Le, T., Oliver, B. R., & Tan, K. J. K. (2022). Nowhere to hide: Corporate restructuring activities response to mandatory segment disclosure. Journal of Corporate Finance.
- Loslever, P., Cabon, S., & Riera, B. (2009). Correspondence analysis and transition matrices as tools to study time-dependent multivariate data: application to the analysis of eye movement patterns. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(3), 253-275.
- Mardini, G. H., Tahat, Y. A., & Power, D. M. (2013). Determinants of segmental disclosures: Evidence from the emerging capital market of Jordan, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 5(3), 253-276.
- Mateescu, R. (2016). Segment disclosure practices and determinants: Evidence from Romanian listed companies. The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology, 20, 40-50.
- Munisi, G. (2023). Ownership structure and information disclosure in Sub-Saharan African countries. African Journal of Applied Research, 9(1), 51-77.
- Mutalib, F. A., & Jaafar, H. (2019). Segment reporting practices and determinants: Evidence from Malaysian public listed companies. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 3, 264-273.
- Opara, S. (2017, March 5). 15 companies delisted from Nigerian Stock Exchange in 2016. Punch Newspaper.
- Peleaz, B. B. (2010). Segment disclosure, cost of capital and investment efficiency (Doctoral Thesis). Universidad Carlos III de Madrid [Charles III University of Madrid].
- Prencipe, A. (2004). Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. European Accounting Review, 13(2), 319-340.
- Shivaani, M. V., & Agarwal, N. (2020). Does competitive position of a firm affect the quality of risk disclosure? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 61, 101-317.
- Tian, Y., & Chen, J. (2009). Concept of voluntary disclosure and a review of relevant studies. Rand Journal of Economics and Finance, 1(2), 33-43.
- Wang, Q. (2015). Determinants of segment disclosure deficiencies and the effect of the SEC comment letter process. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14(3), 38-45.
- Xiong, Y., & Yang, L. (2021). Disclosure, competition, and learning from asset prices. Journal of Economic Theory, 197, 105331.
- Yevick, D., & Reimer, M. (2007). Transition matrix analysis of system outages. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, 19(19), 1529-1531.
- Yu, Z., & Chen, G. (2000). Rescaled range and transition matrix analysis of DNA sequences. International Academic Publishers Communications in Theoretical Physics, 33(4).
-
The impact of free cash flow, equity concentration and agency costs on firm’s profitability
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 14, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 19-26 Views: 1568 Downloads: 997 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper examines how free cash flow and equity concentration are associated with agency costs, and how they influence the profitability of insurance firms listed on the Saudi Stock Market. The results indicate that equity concentration has no significant impact on agency costs, free cash flow has no significant impact on agency costs and agency costs have no significant impact on firm’s profitability. The findings of this study do not show any evidence to support the agency theory among insurance firms listed on the Saudi Stock Market.
-
Capital structure and profitability: the case of Nigerian deposit money banks
Adegbola Olubukola Otekunrin ,
Tony Ikechukwu Nwanji ,
Damilola Eluyela 
,
Johnson Kolawole Olowookere ,
Damilola Gabriel Fagboro
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(4).2020.18
Banks and Bank Systems Volume 15, 2020 Issue #4 pp. 221-228 Views: 1368 Downloads: 565 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis paper aimed to empirically examine the extent to which capital structure impacts the profitability of Nigerian Deposit Money Banks considering the profitability of eight Nigerian Deposit Money Banks from 2003 to 2018 (16 years). A descriptive research design was adopted for this study, and data were analyzed using regression. The study used secondary data obtained from published annual reports of selected Nigerian Deposit Money Banks on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) for four years (2003–2018). The study concluded that the indicators used to measure capital structure (debt-equity ratio and leverage ratio) and profitability (returns on equity) had a negative relationship. This means that the use of debts mixed with equity (debt-equity ratio and leverage ratio) in improper proportion as financing methods can negatively affect profitability. Hence, there is a need to identify the optimal mix of capital structure (debts mixed with equity) that maximizes profitability, as well as firm and shareholder value with minimum agency costs as suggested by the trade-off theory and agency theory, respectively. The alternative is to give preference to retained earnings (internal source of finance) as funding source.
Acknowledgment
All researchers and non-researchers that contributed to this paper are highly appreciated. -
State-owned enterprises as a political tool: The case of a Venezuelan oil company
Juan Morales
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(1).2022.38
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022 Issue #1 pp. 473-487 Views: 1230 Downloads: 313 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯPublic companies represent a valuable tool for the state to intervene in the economy by correcting market failures. However, critical positions that advocate its privatization continue to appear since they do not usually have great returns. This study analyzes the effect that political goals have on the efficiency of a state-owned enterprise (SOE) when ownership and management tend to be concentrated in the same actor. Agency theory served as a reference framework, using Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) as a case study during the period 1995–2014. First, the period was divided into four stages differentiated by changes in the SOE volumetric strategy, the exploration strategy, the position regarding foreign capital, and the SOE participation in social development activities. Later, the SOE economic and productive efficiency was analyzed in the stages to identify relevant changes. The results indicate that the interests of the principal and the agent by good management of the SOE increase when the profit is reduced. It is mainly due to the need of the government to benefit from these activities. However, when the company surplus increase, the government tends to intensify its control to obtain additional benefits, especially during electoral events.
