30.06.2013 Views

Understandability and Transparency of the Financial Statements of ...

Understandability and Transparency of the Financial Statements of ...

Understandability and Transparency of the Financial Statements of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

al., 2008; Newberry, 1992; Rees & Dixon, 1983; Vatter, 1947; Williams & Palmer,<br />

1998).<br />

Early English studies highlight <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> a clear definition <strong>of</strong> „fund‟, with some funds<br />

referring to contributions from donors who have placed restrictions on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m<br />

<strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r funds referring to unrestricted funds which have been earmarked by<br />

management for a particular purpose i.e. reserves (Bird & Morgan-Jones, 1981).<br />

William <strong>and</strong> Palmer (1998) found that many English charities were providing<br />

inadequate information about funds. However, <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SORP, with<br />

specific definitions, ensured that for large charities, by 2000, (Connolly & Hyndman,<br />

2000) all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> funds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> charity were clearly labelled, <strong>and</strong> for medium-sized<br />

charities 90% complied (Connolly & Hyndman, 2001).<br />

This has not been resolved in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, where Rees & Dixon (1983) found that<br />

little information was given to indicate what funds were used for <strong>and</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y were<br />

restricted in any way. This was supported by Hooper, et. al. (2008) who found that <strong>the</strong>re<br />

is still a lack <strong>of</strong> consistency in <strong>the</strong> titles being used. One charity could use designated<br />

funds, which means that <strong>the</strong> funds are restricted by <strong>the</strong> donors. Whereas in ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />

charity designated funds are funds that are not restricted by <strong>the</strong> donors, but are set aside<br />

by <strong>the</strong> charity for a particular purpose i.e. reserves. This is particularly concerning given<br />

that Charities‟ Annual Return (Charities Commission, 2008c) requires equity to be split<br />

between: endowment funds, restricted purpose funds <strong>and</strong> general accumulated funds,<br />

with no explanation given as to what this means.<br />

Whilst New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Australia are undertaking a joint project (Warren, 2007) to try<br />

<strong>and</strong> clarify <strong>the</strong>se definitions to <strong>the</strong> researcher‟s knowledge this has not yet occurred. It is<br />

important for <strong>the</strong> transparency <strong>of</strong> charities‟ financial statements that an underst<strong>and</strong>ing is<br />

developed <strong>of</strong> why charities are using <strong>the</strong> different terms to determine <strong>the</strong> most<br />

appropriate definitions to use.<br />

In relation to <strong>the</strong> recording <strong>of</strong> funds, Bird <strong>and</strong> Morgan-Jones (1981) found that funds<br />

were recorded in three ways: first as capital (29%); second as income (48%); <strong>and</strong> third<br />

with a proportion to <strong>the</strong> Income Statement <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest to a suspense account (23%). A<br />

later study found that 60% <strong>of</strong> large charities passed items directly through to reserves<br />

(Williams & Palmer, 1998). However, after <strong>the</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SORP with its<br />

stipulation that funds be credited to income, Connolly & Hyndman‟s (2000) study <strong>of</strong><br />

59

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!