There have been several instances where analysts have found, to their consternation, that the rosy unaudited results published are found to be so much hot air when qualifications are taken into account. There exists a strong case, therefore, for disclosure of discrepancies between a company's unaudited and audited results, to enable stakeholders to make their own conclusions regarding the company's accounts. Moreover, it is not just unaudited results which give a misleading picture, but often the audited results too carry hardly any meaning. What is one to make of audited accounts which carry a string of qualifications? Common sense wouldsuggest that companies should be forced to rectify these qualifications, yet institutions such as the Company Law Board, which can insist on such requirements, maintain a deafening silence in the matter. To be sure, we have had recent instances of cosmetic changes in annual reports, often by adding data on figures such as economic value added. But vested interests have so far scuttled any attempt to give statutory backing to accounting standards. Why else should an important accounting standard such as AS2, dealing with the valuation of inventory, be recommendatory, and not mandatory? Statutory action may be a long time coming, but at the very least institutional shareholders, such as the financial institutions can take the lead in demanding more meaningful accounting.