Abstract The article presents a reply to comments made by Professors, Kung H. Chen and S.J. Lambert on a study related to disclosure among public accountants and security analysts. The author states that the principal null hypothesis of the study was that there is no difference between the value of information to security analysts as perceived by account-ants and the value of information to security analysts for equity investment decisions. Chen and Lambert have noted that the calculated mean response of Group A subjects was numerically higher than that of Group C for 11 out of 58 information items, while Group C had higher mean values compared to Group A for 47 out of 58 items. They also noted a difference in the patterns of dispersion. The author agrees to their observation but stated that the objective of the study was to examine whether users and preparers of the corporate annual reports agree on the value of various information items for equity investment decisions. Differences in the value ratings were to be expected, however, the direction of the differences could not be predicted.
Michael Gibbins (Fri,) studied this question.