Purpose: While prior research in the area of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure has mainly focused on firm, board and audit committee characteristics, there is little research on whether managerial characteristics are associated with IC disclosure. This study aims to examine the relationship between managerial ability (MA) and the extent of IC disclosure.Design/methodology/approach: The study sample comprises 1,098 firm-year observations of Iranian listed firms during 2012–2017. This study uses the checklist developed by Liet al.(2008) and adopts a content analysis approach and calculates the IC disclosure index in 62 dimensions within three categories: human capital, structural capital and relational capital. To measure MA, this study uses the managerial ability score (MA-Score) developed by Demerjianet al.(2012) for Iranian firms.Findings: The results show that MA is significantly and negatively associated with the overall extent of IC disclosure and all the three components of IC (human capital, structural capital and relational capital). Further analysis shows that the interaction between MA and firm performance is positive and significant, suggesting that the negative relationship between MA and IC disclosure is less pronounced for high-performing firms. This study addresses the potential endogeneity issue by using the propensity score matching approach. The findings are also robust to the alternative measure of MA.Originality/value: This study contributes to both the MA literature and the IC disclosure literature. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to provide empirical evidence on the relationship between MA and IC disclosure.

An implicit premise of regulators and much empirical research is that financial reporting readability (readability) substantially reflects management choices. To investigate this issue, we decompose readability into its discretionary and innate components. To validate this decomposition, we examine whether these two components have different uncertainty effects. Our empirical findings show that readability is primarily the result of firm fundamentals rather than managerial choices. Furthermore, consistent with expectation, discretionary readability has a weaker uncertainty effect than innate readability. The findings are robust to a variety of additional tests. This study contributes to regulators to better assess readability and to empirical literature to construct more accurate tests.

Purpose: This study investigates the relationship between the Chief Executive Officer's (CEO) overconfidence and financial reporting complexity in Iran, a context characterized by weak corporate governance and heightened managerial discretion.Design/methodology/approach: The sample consists of 1,445 firm-year observations from 2010 to 2021. CEO overconfidence (CEOOC) is evaluated using an investment-based index, specifically capital expenditures. Financial reporting complexity (Complexity) is measured through textual features, particularly three readability measures (Fog, SMOG and ARI) extracted from annual financial statements. The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is employed to test the research hypothesis.Findings: Results suggest that CEOOC is positively related to Complexity, leading to reduced readability. Additionally, robustness analyses demonstrate that the relationship between CEOOC and Complexity is more distinct and significant for firms with lower profitability than those with higher profitability. This implies that overconfident CEOs in underperforming firms tend to increase complexity. Also, firms with better financial performance present a more positive tone in their annual financial statements, reflecting their superior performance. The findings remain robust to alternative measures of CEOOC and Complexity and are consistent after accounting for endogeneity issues using firm fixed-effects, propensity score matching (PSM), entropy balancing approach and instrumental variables method.Research limitations/implications: This study adds to the literature by delving into the effect of CEOs' overconfidence on financial reporting complexity, a facet not thoroughly investigated in prior studies. The paper pioneers the use of textual analysis techniques on Persian texts, marking a unique approach in financial reporting and a first for the Persian language. However, due to the inherent challenges of text mining and feature extraction, the results should be approached with caution.Practical implications: The insights from this study can guide investors in understanding the potential repercussions of CEOOC on financial reporting complexity. This will assist them in making informed investment decisions and monitoring the financial reporting practices of their invested companies. Policymakers and regulators can also reference this research when formulating policies to enhance financial reporting quality and ensure capital market transparency. The innovative application of textual analysis in this study might spur further research in other languages and contexts.Originality/value: This research stands as the inaugural study to explore the relationship between CEOs' overconfidence and financial reporting complexity in both developed and developing capital markets. It thereby broadens the extant literature to include diverse capital market environments.

Purpose: This study investigates the influence of corporate culture on financial reporting transparency within Iranian firms. Design/methodology/approach: Leveraging a dataset of 1,480 firm-year observations from the Tehran Stock Exchange spanning from 2013 to 2022, the study employs text mining to quantify linguistic features of corporate culture and transparency, specifically readability and tone, within annual financial statements and Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) reports. Findings: Our results confirm a positive and significant relationship between corporate culture and financial reporting transparency. The distinct dimensions of corporate culture — Creativity, Competition, Control, and Collaboration — each uniquely enhance financial transparency. Robustness tests including firm fixed-effects, entropy balancing, Generalized Method of Moments (GMM), and Propensity Score Matching (PSM) validate the profound influence of corporate culture on transparency. Additionally, our analysis shows that corporate culture significantly affects the disclosure of business, operational, and financial risks, with varying impacts across risk categories. Cross-sectional analysis further reveals how the impact of corporate culture on transparency varies significantly across different industries and firm sizes. Research limitations/implications: The study’s scope, while focused on Iran, opens avenues for comparative research in different cultural and regulatory environments. Its reliance on text mining could be complemented by qualitative methods to capture more nuanced linguistic subtleties. Practical implications: Findings underscore the strategic importance of cultivating a transparent corporate culture for enhancing financial reporting practices and stakeholder trust, particularly in emerging economies with similar dynamics to Iran. Originality/value: This research is pioneering in its quantitative analysis of the textual features of corporate culture and its impact on transparency within Iranian corporate reports, integrating foundational theoretical perspectives with empirical evidence.

Purpose: While existing research explores the impact of audit market competition on audit fees and audit quality, there is limited investigation into how competition in the audit market influences auditors' writing style. This study examines the relationship between audit market competition and the readability of audit reports in Iran, where competition is particularly intense, especially among private audit firms.Design/methodology/approach: The sample comprises 1,050 firm-year observations in Iran from 2012 to 2018. Readability measures, including the Fog index, Flesch-Reading-Ease (FRE) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), are employed to assess the readability of auditors' reports. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) is utilized to measure audit market competition, with lower index values indicating higher auditor competition. The concentration measure is multiplied by −1 to obtain the competition measure (AudComp). Alternative readability measures, such as the Flesch–Kincaid (FK) and Automated Readability Index (ARI) are used in additional robustness tests. Data on textual features of audit reports, auditor characteristics and other control variables are manually collected from annual reports of firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).Findings: The regression analysis results indicate a significant and positive association between audit market competition and audit report readability. Furthermore, a stronger positive and significant association is observed among private audit firms, where competition is more intense compared to state audit firms. These findings remain robust when using alternative readability measures and other sensitivity checks. Additional analysis reveals that the positive effect of competition on audit report readability is more pronounced in situations where the auditor remains unchanged and the audit market size is small.Originality/value: This paper expands the existing literature by examining the impact of audit market competition on audit report readability. It focuses on a unique audit market (Iran), where competition among audit firms is more intense than in developed countries due to the liberalization of the Iranian audit market in 2001 and the establishment of numerous private audit firms.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the impact of audit partners’ narcissism on the readability of audit reports for companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). It examines the effects of narcissism among both lead and review audit partners on the clarity of audit reports, considering the regulatory requirements and auditing practices within the Iranian financial reporting context. Design/methodology/approach: This paper analyzed 2,691 firm-year observations from TSE-listed companies spanning 2011–2023, using ordinary least squares regression. Readability of audit reports was assessed using the FOG index, with the size of partners’ signatures serving as a proxy for narcissism. Findings: The findings indicate a significant negative relationship between increased narcissism and audit report readability; higher levels of narcissism correspond with elevated FOG index scores. Narcissism in lead partners notably diminishes readability more than that of review partners. This pattern holds across various robustness checks, including alternative readability metrics, variations in auditor engagement complexity, auditor specialization, subsets of qualified audit reports and considerations for endogeneity. Audit reports for economically significant clients tend to be clearer, suggesting a preference for reputation management over yielding to client pressure. Although no direct link was established between partners’ quality and readability, a positive relationship exists between audit firm rank and partners’ narcissism. Furthermore, interactions between auditor and CEO narcissism increase report complexity, especially in contentious negotiation scenarios. Despite regulatory advancements such as International Auditing Standard 701, its moderating effects were found to be inconsequential, highlighting the persistent influence of narcissism on audit report outcomes. Originality/value: This research expands the understanding of how auditor personality traits, particularly narcissism, affect audit outcomes. By exploring the influence of narcissism on report readability within the Iranian context, this study fills a notable gap in the literature on emerging markets and non-Western reporting environments, providing valuable insights into global audit practices.