THE STUDY OF AUDIT EXPECTATION GAP: THE AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES IN A FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT IN VIETNAM

Nguyen Ngoc Khanh Dung¹⁺ --- Dang Anh Tuan²

¹Faculty of Accounting and Auditing, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
²Faculty of Accounting and Auditing, Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam.

Keywords: Audit expectation-performance Gap, Auditors, Auditees, Audit beneficiaries.

JEL Classification:M40.

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:14 August 2019, Revised:24 September 2019, Accepted:30 October 2019, Published:28 November 2019

Contribution/ Originality: This study contributes to understanding the structure, composition, and extent of the Audit Expectation Gap (AEG) in Vietnam, thereby demonstrating the existence of the AEG in Vietnam. This study indicates some reasonable solutions in narrowing the audit expectation gap in Vietnam.

1. INTRODUCTION

“Expectation gap” is the term that was used for the first time in Liggio (1974) and was defined as the difference in opinion between the public and the auditor regarding audit responsibility. Cohen Commission extended the definition to as “whether a gap may exist between what the public expects or needs and what auditors can and should reasonably expect to accomplish” (Cohen, 1978) and was understood in a general way as “The difference between what the public expects from the audit profession and what the audit profession really can provide" (Jennings et al., 1993). Initially, most studies have shown that the AEG only includes the expected distance components expected by the public to be unreasonable in the audit profession (Lee 1970, Beck 1973, Baron et al. 1977). Accordingly, the main reason for the AEG’s existence is not the responsibility of the auditors but the lack of understanding of the public (Lee 1970, Humphrey et al. 1993, McEnroe & Martens 2001, Lee & Azham 2008). This implies that errors are due to the public and the AEG exists objectively due to differences in opinion between the auditors and the groups using the financial statements. There are different levels of interest and knowledge about audit in each group using financial statements (McEnroe & Martens, 2001). Conclusions drawn from empirical studies in most countries around the world in this period support the idea that the AEG always exists objectively with the audit profession and they cannot narrow down entirely if due to differences of opinion. Economic, political and social factors do not directly affect the emergence and existence of the AEG (Lee 1970, Beck 1972, Humphrey et al. 1993). More than a decade later, the AEG is still in existence and tends to widen. The increasing criticism of the audit profession requires researchers and professionals to take a new research approach toward the AEG and reconsider whether the impact of the AEG has negatively impacted the position of the audit profession in the society. Porter (1993) proposed that the AEG should be extended to AEG. Porter (1993) argument was that recent criticism against auditors has arisen from the fact that auditing professions fail to meet social expectations. That result has undermined confidence in the audit function as well as its position in social structure.

According to Limperg (1933) the position and role of an audit are based on the level of trust formed on the basis of the interaction between public expectations and perception. The bigger the AEG, the more likely the audit profession does not meet the expectations of the society. As a consequence, the public's trust in the audit profession is declining, so auditing can be removed. Therefore, in order to narrow the AEG, according to Porter (1993) it is necessary to identify (i) the audit responsibility that society expects; (ii) the reasonable responsibility that society expects; and (iii) the extent to which the auditor meets the reasonable expectations of the society.

Narrowing the  AEG is particularly effective when measuring the level of each component of the gap and pointing out which group is responsible for a particular case. So, in the early 1990s, Porter (1993) proposed the definition of the AEG, which differs in structure and composition from previous definitions, in order to determine whether the AEG exists as a liability of public or auditors. Subsequently, Porter et al. (2012) and Porter and Gowthrope (2004) conducted a survey to measure and assess the degree of each component of the gap defined in 1993 in New Zealand and England. The study compared the changes, modifies and evaluates the effectiveness of the AEG reduction solutions in practice. In Vietnam, the AEG is a new term for professionals and regulatory organizations, even in the field of research.

The Ministry of Finance has amended and issued the Vietnamese Standards on Auditing effective from January 1st, 2014 which adhere to the International Standards on Auditing. The process of developing the Vietnamese Standards on Auditing has been consulted on by experts and researchers but has not yet been based on specific social survey results on the position and role of the audit profession, public expectations, and expectations for auditor’s responsibilities. Therefore, although there have been more than three years of application, no empirical studies have evaluated the impact and benefits of the Vietnamese Standards on Auditing.

In Vietnam, no research has ever identified and measured the extent to which each component constitutes the AEG. Therefore, this study was conducted with two main objectives:

1. Discovering the audit responsibilities which contribute to each component of  the AEG in Vietnam.
2. Determining the extent, structure, and compositionof the AEG in Vietnam.

2. AUDIT EXPECTATION GAP MODEL

The AEG has been defined and proposed by many different researchers and professionals. Liggio (1974) defines the AEG as the difference between the levels of expected performance “as envisioned by the independent accountant and by the user of financial statements” (p.27). In 1978, the Cohen Commission extended the definition of the AEG from “users of financial statements” to “the public”, and from “expected performance” to “what auditors can and should reasonably expect to accomplish”. Also focusing on auditors’ responsibility, but more specifically, Guy and Sullivan (1988) states that "the AEG is the difference between what the public believes to be within the responsibilities of the auditors and what auditors themselves believe to be within their responsibilities. The limitation of this definition is that it only considers the liability of the auditor from auditors and audit firms’ perspectives. The perspective of the auditor and audit firm can be governed by the regulations, work environment, size of the company, and reputation of the audit firm.

a) The AEG model of Porter (1993)

Porter (1993) based on the results of a study conducted in 1989 in New Zealand, commented that the definition of Liggio (1974) and Cohen (1978) were too narrow and did not mention that the auditor may not accomplish “expected performance” (Liggio, 1974) or what they can and reasonably should” (Cohen, 1978). It is impossible to assess the situation in which an auditor fails to complete his/her work or what an auditor is capable of performing.

Therefore, in order to recognize the  AEG, it is necessary to identify (i) the audit responsibilities which the auditor is expected to perform by the society; (ii) the reasonable audit responsibilities which the auditor is expected to perform by the society; and (iii) auditors’ ability to meet the social expectations (Porter et al., 2005). Thus, Porter asserted that the  AEG study must be designed to allow the extension of different approaches and explanations. Porter proposed adding a “performance gap” and defined AEG as the gap between society’s expectation of auditors and auditors’ performance. The AEG model, according to Porter (1993) consists of two components:

1. The “reasonableness gap” – the gap between the responsibilities which auditors are expected to perform by the society and those it is reasonable to expect from auditors.
2. The “performance gap” – the gap between the responsibilities of auditors which are reasonably expected by the society and those it perceives they deliver.

This component may be subdivided into:
(a) The “deficient standards gap” – the gap between the auditors’ responsibilities which are reasonably expected and those auditors are required to perform by statute or case law, regulations or professional promulgations.
(b) The “deficient performance gap” – the gap between the expected standard of performance of auditors’ existing responsibilities, and what is perceived to be delivered, by the society.

b) The AEG model of Turner et al. (2010)

Turner et al. (2010) argued that Porter (1993)  AEG model had the limitation of not indicating that the audit profession must provide services to more than one customer, and had not addressed the issue of the exchange of information between auditing firms and auditees. This can cause the possibility that the user has no need for the provided auditing services or the auditees does not want to pay for the responsibilities performed by the auditor in accordance with the professional standards. Accordingly, alongside the components similar to Porter (1993) AEG model, Turner et al. (2010) had added another component called “the research” for when a service firm did not have information on what customers expect. This is formed when an auditor performs auditing tasks and responsibilities that are not requested or expected by the public. For example, international accounting standards (ISA) require auditors to provide comments on auditees’ compliance with environmental regulations but developing countries such as Vietnam do not yet have these regulations, which require enterprises to publish financial information related to environmental activities.

3. PREVIOUS STUDIES RELATED TO IDENTIFYING AND MEASURING THE LEVEL OF THE AEG

Porter (1993) conducted the first survey in New Zealand in 1989 to determine the structure, composition, and extent of the audit expectation- performance gap. Research methods were inherited partially from studies by Lee (1970) and Beck (1973). This research provided a method for determining the composition, structure, and measurement of the distance of each component that makes up the AEG. More importantly, this research indicated a comprehensive approach towards narrowing the gap, thereby, reducing criticism and litigation that auditors were facing. Research results indicated that the AEG exists between auditors, auditees, and the two audit beneficiary groups. The reasonableness gap, deficient standards gap, and deficient performance gap were respectively 34%, 50%, and 16%.

Porter and Gowthrope (2004) conducted a comparative study in the UK and New Zealand in 1999 to (1) identify the components, structures and levels of gap in the UK and New Zealand in 1999; (2) compare the  AEG between the two countries; (3) compare the changes in NZ in 1989-1999 period. The participants in the survey were randomly selected from four interest groups – auditors, auditees and two audit beneficiary groups. The questionnaire included 51 existing auditor duties, the duties’ performance standard and the duties that auditors should perform.

The research findings indicated the structure, composition, and extent of the AEG resemblance to the AEG model of Porter from1993. The results also showed, in 1999, the composition, structure, and extent of the audit expectation - performance gap in NZ and the UK were very similar. The reasonableness gap, deficient standards gap, deficient performance gap were 8%, 42% and 50% in the UK; and 6%, 41%, and 53% in NZ respectively.

In 1989, the reasonableness gap, deficient standards gap, deficient performance gap in New Zealand were 11%, 58%, and 31% respectively. There were significant changes in the structure, composition, and extent of the audit expectation - performance gap in New Zealand from 1989 to 1999: deficient standards gap reduced from 58% to 41%, deficient performance gap reduced from 11% to 6%, and responsibilities that were not reasonably expected from auditors lead to the reasonableness gap rising from 31% to 43 %.

In 2008, Porter et al. (2012) conducted the same survey, but added a number of new responsibilities that she believed were the responsibilities of auditors. The results showed that the reasonableness gap, deficient standards gap, and deficient performance gap were 50%, 43% and 7% respectively. Thus, after twenty years, the reasonableness gap had not changed, but the deficient standards gap had widened and the deficient performance gap had narrowed. This means the quality of audits in New Zealand has improved significantly due to a more stringent audit of the audit profession (Porter et al., 2012).

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research is based on Porter (1993) the AEG model and partially inherited the research methodology used in Porter et al. (2012).
The objective of the study was to discover the auditor’s responsibilities that contributed to each component of the AEG, confirm the existence and measure the components that constitute the AEG in Vietnam.

This thesis developed the research of Porter et al. (2012) in two ways. Firstly, by adding the “research gap” in Turner et al. (2010) to determine whether the AEG in Vietnam was composed of three components: research gap (Turner et al., 2010) reasonableness gap, and performance gap (Porter, 1993). Secondly, by exploring and using the viewpoint of the auditors as a benchmark to explain why some of the auditors' responsibilities are reasonably expected, although not stated in the current auditing standards (the Porter et al. (2012)) study has not yet been used to explain).

Quantitative research was conducted through direct interviews and mail surveys with interest groups.
Respondents were classified into four groups:

1. Auditors (the sample of auditors was a random selection from the list of Certified Public Accountants Vietnam).
2. Auditees (joint-stock companies listed on the securities market).
3. Audit beneficiaries-in the financial community (direct beneficiaries of the audit function as users of audited financial statements).
4. Audit beneficiaries-general public (randomly selected in Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and neighboring provinces).

The methods of non-probability sampling with the number of the survey of 1,400 achieved 454 usable responses which were 32% (average responses per sample group were 113). The survey period was from December 2016 to April 2017. The standards which defined each component constituting the AEG according to the standards of the Porter et al. (2012) research was based on the average total score & the proportions of each group’s responses. Microsoft Excel was used to analyze the descriptive statistics.

The questionnaire design followed the Porter et al. (2012) and was adjusted to suit the Vietnamese business environment. The questionnaire in Appendix 1 includes 45 proposed responsibilities of auditors and interviewers were asked to choose the appropriate response to three questions:
1. Is the proposed responsibility an existing responsibility of auditors?
2. If so, how well is the responsibility performed?
3. Should the proposed responsibility be a responsibility of auditors?
For question 1 and 3, the options ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘not sure’ were provided. These were coded +1, -1 and 0 respectively.
For question 2, the respondents were asked to select from four options ‘poorly’, ‘adequately’, ‘well’, and ‘unable to judge’. These were coded 1, 2, 3, and 0, respectively.

Criteria for the classification of auditors' responsibilities were:

1. The existing auditors’ responsibilities in Vietnam as defined by the law, regulations and professional promulgations in Vietnam and Vietnamese Standards on Auditing – VSA Appendix 2.
2. The existing auditors’ responsibilities in Vietnam which are perceived by the public determined by question one (1)¹ .
3. The responsibilities auditors should perform determined by question three, with >20% average proportions of the non-auditor interest groups.
4. The responsibilities auditors should perform determined by question three are reasonable responsibilities if means of responses of both auditees and audit beneficiaries in the financial community > 0.
5. Assessment of auditors’ existing responsibilities performance by interest groups: a mean of interest group responses is < 2%  or > 20% meaning the society considers these responsibilities being sub-standardly performed by auditors, which suggests that members of the group (excluding those who were unable to judge) considered auditors’ performance is not satisfactory.

Criteria for identifying the components of the AEG:

1. The responsibilities unreasonably expected from auditors constitute the “reasonableness gap”.
2. The responsibilities that society sees auditors are performing substandard constitute the “deficient performance gap”.
3. The gap between the responsibilities reasonably expected from auditors and those they are required to perform by legislation, case law, regulations or professional promulgations constitute the “deficient standards gap”.

The analytical framework of auditors' responsibilities and the components of the the AEG.

Figure-1. The analytical framework of auditors' responsibilities and the components of the AEG.

Source: The analytical framework of study.

5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

5.1. Identification of Auditors’ Responsibilities Which Directly Contribute to the Audit Expectation Gap

a) Identification of Auditors’ Responsibilities - the ‘Reasonableness Gap’

• The responsibilities that auditors should perform:Based on the theory of Inspired Confidence of Limperg (1933) to identify which are the suggested responsibilities should be performed by auditors. Survey results showed that the interest group expects auditors to perform 42/45 responsibilities, with the proportion of Society group >= 20 percent signifies the findings Column No.12² , Table 1.
• The responsibilities that are reasonably expected from auditors:Based on the agency theory and the theory of Inspired Confidence to identify responsibilities that are reasonably expected from auditors, results show the understanding and interest of two groups: the auditees and the audit beneficiaries from the financial community are fairly similar mean of two group >0, column No. 3, Table 1. With this criterion, 29 of the 42 proposed auditors’ responsibilities were identified as reasonably expected from auditors Row A-I, Table 1.
• The responsibilities that are unreasonably expected of auditors: There are 42 responsibilities that interest groups consider auditors should perform in which 29 are reasonably expected from auditors. Society expects auditors to perform the remaining thirteen responsibilities, however it is not cost - beneficial for them to do so. These thirteen responsibilities constitute the “reasonableness gap”, Row A-II, Table 1.

Table-1. Responsibilities which are reasonable/ unreasonable to expect from auditors.

Source: The result of the study.

b) Identification of the Responsibilities Reasonably Expected from Auditors that Auditing Standards Need to Encompass – the Deficient Standard Gap

The above analysis showed that 29 responsibilities satisfied the criterion to be recognized as responsibilities auditors are reasonably expected to perform. By comparing these 29 responsibilities with the auditing responsibilities set out in Vietnam's current regulations, laws and standards, there were sixteen existing auditors’ responsibilities in Vietnam as listed in Appendix 1,  and thirteen audit responsibilities were not available in regulation, laws and Vietnamese Standards on Auditing (VSA). Thus, that constituted the “deficient standards gap”. Based on the opinion of the auditors, ten responsibilities auditors may be required by Vietnamese Standards on Auditing in normal conditions including responsibilities of 29, 28, 39, 31, 41, 32, 7, 19, 44, 38 -Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. And three responsibilities auditors may be required by Vietnamese Standards on Auditing if there is a need of some reasonable means to ensure the risks that they face while performing their duties including responsibilities of  17, 35, 33- Table 1.

c) Identification of the Responsibilities that Being Perceived Sub-Standardly Performed by Auditors - the Deficient Performance Gap

This was based on the reader response theory to explain society’s judgment of auditors’ performance. The survey results showed that interest groups overall considered that standard performance of eight out of sixteen existing auditor responsibilities was satisfactory, including responsibilities of 3, 6, 40, 43, 21, 5, 25, 42 Para. I, as shown in Table 2.

This study provided evidence for the differences in evaluations of the standard of auditors’ performance of other responsibilities and the standard of auditors’ performance of the above eight responsibilities, considering them as unsatisfactory (Mean of Society group < 2.0). These responsibilities constituted the “deficient performance gap” Para II, as shown in Table 2.

d) Identification of Auditors’ Responsibilities - the Research Gap

The survey results showed that all sixteen existing responsibilities were those that the public expects auditors to perform and were reasonable. Thus, all existing responsibilities were needed according to public recognition and do not constitute a research gap as per Table 2.

5.2. The Extent of the  AEG and its Components

a) Identifying the Components of the AEG

The responsibilities comprise each of the three components of the AEG: reasonable gap (thirteen responsibilities), deficient standards gap (thirteen responsibilities), deficient performance gap (eight responsibilities). There is no “research gap”.

Table-2 . Vietnam society group’s assessment of auditors’ existing responsibilities performance (Deficient performance gap or research gap).

Source: The result of the study.

b) The Extent of the AEG

The relative contribution of the deficient performance gap, deficient standards gap and reasonableness gap to the overall AEG are 20%, 49%, and 31% as per Figure 2.

Figure-2. Relative contribution of responsibilities to components to the AEG in Vietnam.

Source: The result of the study.

6. THE RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1. Conclusion

The study results provided empirical evidence which demonstrated that there is a portion of the AEG parallel with the auditing profession. The results also provided the identification of auditors’ responsibilities which contributed to the AEG: thirteen out of 42 responsibilities constituted the reasonableness gap, thirteen out of 42 responsibilities constituted the deficient standard gap, eight out of 42 responsibilities constituted the deficient performance gap, and no responsibilities constituted the research gap as in the AEG model of Turner. The contributions of each component in the AEG were: reasonableness gap 31%, deficient standard gap 49%, and the deficient performance gap 20% as per Table 3.

The study of the AEG in the financial statements auditing in Vietnam has identified the components, structure, and level of the AEG, as well as the impact of audit professions on the existence of these expectation gaps; thereby, raising rational awareness of the auditing profession within the public. Conversely, the legislature and audit professionals can identify the specific responsibilities of auditors which need to be added or altered in order to enhance them in Vietnam. In addition, auditors can understand the quality of their works under social perspective. Various studies also indicated the existence of the AEG and recognized the difficulty of completely eliminating it.

The AEG always exists with the auditing profession. The development of auditing also shows that the bigger the AEG, the more detrimental it is to auditing profession. Therefore, it is significantly necessary to have appropriate policies to narrow the AEG.

Table-3 . Contribution of responsibilities to components of the AEG in Vietnam.

D: Existing auditors’ duties.
RE: Auditors’ reasonably expected duties.
S: Auditors’ expected duties.

6.2. Policy Implications

To narrow the AEG in Vietnam, the study results indicated the need to improve auditor performance for eight responsibilities, develop standards on auditing for thirteen responsibilities, enhance education training focusing on ten responsibilities and increase the exchange of information by changing the form of audit reports for eight responsibilities as per Figure 3.

Figure-3. Potential tools of reduction the AEG .

Source: The result of study.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Baron, C.D., D.A. Johnson, D.G. Searfoss and C.H. Smith, 1977. Uncovering corporate irregularities: Are we closing the expectation gap? Journal of Accountancy, 144: 243-250.

Beck, C.W., 1973. The role of the auditor in modern society: An empirical appraisal. Accounting and Business Research, 3(10): 117-122.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1973.9729008.

Cohen, C., 1978. Report of the commission on auditors’ responsibilities; conclusions and recommendations. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Humphrey C, Moizer P and Turley S (1993), “The Audit Expectation Gap in Britain: An Empirical Investigation”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 23, pp. 395-411.

Guy, D.M. and J.D. Sullivan, 1988. The expectation gap auditing standards. Journal of Accountancy, 165(4): 36-44.

Jennings, M., D.C. Kneer and P.M. Reckers, 1993. The significance of audit decision aids and precase jurists' attitudes on perceptions of audit firm culpability and liability. Contemporary Accounting Research, 9(2): 489-507.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00894.x.

Lee, T.A., 1970. The nature of auditing and its objectives. Accountancy, 81(920): 292-296.

Lee T H and Azham Md A (2008), “The Evolving Role of Auditor: Where do We go from Here?”, Accountants Today, March, pp. 18-22.

Liggio, C.D., 1974. Expectation gap-accountants legal Waterloo. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(3): 27-44.

Limperg, T., 1933. The social responsibility of the auditor. Netherlands: Limperg Institute.

McEnroe, J. E., and. Martens S.C (2001). Auditors’ and Investors’ Perceptions of the Expectation Gap, Accounting Horizons, Vol.15, No.4, December, pp. 345-358.

Porter, B., C. O hÓgartaigh and R. Baskerville, 2012. Audit expectation-performance gap revisited: Evidence from New Zealand and the United Kingdom Part 2: Changes in the gap in New Zealand 1989–2008 and in the United Kingdom 1999–2008. International Journal of Auditing, 16(2): 101-129.

Porter, B., C. Ó hÓgartaigh and R. Baskerville, 2012. Audit expectation-performance gap revisited: Evidence from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Part 1: The gap in New Zealand and the United Kingdom in 2008. International Journal of Auditing, 16(2): 101-129.

Porter, B.A., 1993. An empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93): 49-68.

Porter, B.A. and C. Gowthrope, 2004. Audit expectation-performance gap in the United Kingdom in 1999 and comparison with the gap in New Zealand in 1989 and 1999. Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.

Porter, B.A., J. Simon and D. Hatherly, 2005. Principles of external auditing. 2nd Edn., United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Turner, K.F., C.C. Bienstock and R.O. Reed, 2010. An application of the conceptual model of service quality to independent auditing services. Journal of Applied Business Research, 26(4): 1-8.

Appendix-1. The questionnaire

Survey of Expectation of External Auditors in Vietnam
This questionnaire has two parts:

• Part 1: The responsibilities of auditors
• Part 2: Background information

Please answer all of part 1,2.  Thank you for your participating in this survey
Name:…………………………………………………………: Workplace:………………………………………………………
Email:…………………………………………………………:Phone……………………………………………………………………

Part 1: The Responsibilities of Auditors
Section 1a: Please complete Section 1 a by circling to appropriate number to indicate whether you think auditors are or are not required to perform the listed responsibility or you are not sure.
Section 1b: If you circle “1” to indicate “yes” in section 1a, please complete Section 1b by circling to appropriate number to indicate how well do you think auditors perform the responsibility.
Section 2: Please complete Section 2 by circling to appropriate number to indicate whether you think auditors should or should not be required to perform the listed responsibility or you are not sure. 

 

Part 2. Background Information

Please circle the relevant number for all of the groups to which you belong or to which you have belonged in the last three years (3 years).

Job	Now	Not now but in the last 3 years	Job	Now	Not now but in the last 3 years
Audit partner	1	2	Shareholder	1	2
Audit staff	1	2	Banker	1	2
Board of Director	1	2	Financial analyst	1	2
Chief Executive Officer	1	2	Stockbrokers	1	2
Head of Division	1	2	Certified Public Accountant	1	2
Chief Financial Officer/ accounting manager	1	2	Government auditor/ tax official	1	2
Accountant	1	2	Teacher of auditing	1	2
Internal auditor			Lawyer	1	2
			Financial journalists	1	2
Others: ………………………………………………………………				1	2

Appendix-2 . The existing auditors’ responsibilities in Vietnam as defined by the law, regulations and professional promulgations in Vietnam and Vietnamese Standards on Auditing –VSA.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Asian Economic and Financial Review shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.

Footnotes: