Good disclosure doesn't cure bad accounting—Or does it?: Evaluating the case for SFAS 158

This paper investigates whether the newly required recognition of the funded status of defined benefit (DB) plans under SFAS 158 is incrementally value relevant in its adoption year (2006) relative to the corresponding amounts which were previously disclosed from both equity investor and credit rating perspectives. In equity valuation models, we use a sample of 878 firms (1756 firm years) offering DB plans in 2005 (disclosure year) and 2006 (recognition year), and find no incrementally significant association with market prices of newly recognized amounts under SFAS 158 over the same information that was disclosed pre-SFAS 158. Our credit rating tests, using a sample of 428 DB firms (856 firm years) for 2005 and 2006 also show no differential impact of recognition over disclosure. Overall, we find that equity investors price the SFAS 158-imposed pension differential while credit rating agencies do not, regardless of whether such information is recognized or disclosed in the financial statements. Our results are consistent with efficiency in both equity and credit markets with respect to pension information and suggest that SFAS 158 has not changed the way market participants in aggregate use pension-related financial statement information.     

Do stock prices reflect undisclosed financial statement information? Evidence from the OTCBB

I exploit a regulatory change that mandated that Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB) firms must comply with the reporting requirements of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. I use this change to examine the association between equity values and financial statement data in voluntary and mandatory disclosure environments. Before the change, disclosure of financial statement information was voluntary for most of these firms. I study firms that initiate SEC filing after the change and classify them as disclosing and nondisclosing based on whether they voluntarily disclosed financial statement information before the regulatory change. In these firms’ initial SEC filings after the eligibility rule, they retroactively disclose financial statement information for the year prior to compliance with the rule. Thus I can observe previously withheld financial data. I find that the choice to voluntarily disclose is negatively associated with firm characteristics related to proprietary costs and with situations in which accounting information plays a less important role in resolving information asymmetry. For nondisclosing firms, I find evidence that equity values reflect financial statement data, even though this information was not publicly available, and that compliance with mandatory SEC disclosure requirements strengthens this association. For disclosing firms, I find evidence that suggests investors viewed their voluntary disclosure of financial statement data as credible and fail to find evidence that compliance with mandatory reporting requirements enhances this association.     

Recognition versus disclosure of finance leases: Evidence from Japan

This study examines whether credit market participants—bond investors and credit rating agencies—treat recognized and disclosed finance leases differently when assessing firms’ credit risk in Japan. I use firms’ credit risk, measured by bond spreads and credit ratings, to investigate the relations between recognized versus disclosed finance lease obligations and firms’ credit risk following the adoption of Statement No. 13, Accounting Standard for Lease Transactions. For a sample of firms issuing new bonds, I find that, unlike recognized finance leases, disclosed finance leases are not associated with bond spreads. Moreover, the associations between recognized versus disclosed finance leases and bond spreads are substantially different. Conversely, recognized and disclosed finance leases are associated with credit ratings and are processed similarly when credit ratings are determined. Taken together, my results suggest that the sophistication of capital market participants influences their credit risk assessments of recognized versus disclosed finance leases.     

Investor overlap and diffusion of disclosure practices

I develop and test an investor demand-driven explanation for why one firm’s change in voluntary disclosure behavior is emulated by some firms in the industry but not others. I focus on the overlap in institutional investor ownership between two firms as a mechanism by which a first-mover firm’s increase in disclosure prompts investors to seek a similar increase from a follower firm. Using 10-K market risk disclosures as my empirical setting, I find that a firm’s decision to follow a first mover in providing more quantitative information than is required by the SEC is positively associated with an increase in investor overlap from the prior year. I also find that the association is stronger for overlap in large institutional investors, consistent with their greater influence over managers, and for firms where investor uncertainty is high. This association is found after controlling for the herding effect documented in prior studies and after addressing potential endogeneity concerns. Overall, this evidence provides new insight into patterns of intra-industry disclosure behavior and highlights investor overlap as a communication channel and feedback mechanism that helps facilitate the diffusion of disclosure practices.     

Disclosure and liquidity management: Evidence from regulation fair disclosure

We examine the effect of the firm’s information environment on its liquidity policy by exploiting a natural experiment involving Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD). We find, on average, Regulation FD has a negative impact on firm cash holdings. We also directly evaluate changes in firm disclosure policy and find the negative Regulation FD-cash holdings relation is stronger for firms that increased public disclosure and holds largely for firms that faced lower proprietary costs of public disclosure. Furthermore, we find this negative relation is more pronounced for firms with limited access to the credit market. We capture the medium-term effect of Regulation FD two years before and two years after the implementation. Overall, our results suggest that the change in the amount of information disclosed in response to Regulation FD, an externality effect, affects information asymmetry between firms and outside investors and thus cash holdings.     

Crises,contagion and cross-listings

We investigate whether cross-listing shares in the form of depositary receipts in overseas markets benefits investors in emerging market countries during periods of local financial crisis from 1994 to 2002. We regress cumulative abnormal returns for three windows surrounding the crisis events on the cross-listing status while controlling for cross-sectional differences in firm age, trading volume, foreign exposure, disclosure quality and corporate governance. Further, we examine cross-listing effects in countries popularly thought to experience contagious effects of these crises. We find that cross-listed firms react significantly less negatively than non-cross-listed firms, particularly in the aftermath of the crisis. The results on contagious cross-listing effects are however mixed. Our findings are consistent with predictions based on theories of market segmentation as well as differential disclosure/governance between developed and emerging markets. We do not find evidence that foreign investors “panic” during a currency crisis.     

The effect of disclosure committees on non-GAAP reporting quality

I examine whether company-implemented disclosure committees help to improve non-GAAP reporting quality. I find that firms with disclosure committees provide higher quality non-GAAP performance metrics and that the exclusions used to calculate their non-GAAP numbers are less persistent for future operating income and operating cash flows. Moreover, I find that firms with disclosure committees are less likely to receive SEC comment letters about non-GAAP disclosure. For firms that receive comment letters about non-GAAP reporting, disclosure committees can help to improve non-GAAP reporting quality. Comparing the influence of audit committees and disclosure committees, I find that audit committee financial experts have stronger monitoring effects than those on disclosure committees. Meanwhile, legal experts on disclosure committees provide similar monitoring compared to audit committees’ financial experts. Finally, the interaction between audit committee financial experts and disclosure committee legal experts produces the strongest effect on non-GAAP reporting quality. In sum, my analyses suggest that disclosure committees can provide important monitoring of non-GAAP reporting.     

The Impact of Recognition Versus Disclosure on Financial Information: A Preparer's Perspective

We investigate whether recognition on the face of the financial statements versus disclosure in the footnotes influences the amount that financial managers report for a contingent liability. Using an experiment with corporate controllers and chief financial officers, we find that financial managers in public companies expend more cognitive effort and exhibit less strategic bias under recognition than disclosure. This difference appears to be associated with capital market pressures experienced by public company managers as we find that both the cognitive effort and bias exhibited by private company managers are unaffected by placement. As a result, public company managers make higher liability estimates for recognized versus disclosed liabilities. Their liability estimates are similar to those of private company managers for recognition but lower than private company managers’ estimates for disclosure. Our results have implications for auditors and financial statement users in evaluating recognized versus disclosed information for public and private companies.     

The Value Relevance of Accounting Numbers Under International Financial Reporting Standards

We study the market reaction to the mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Spain by examining the value relevance of the information contained in the IFRS reconciliation adjustments in relation to the local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The two‐staged IFRS disclosure in the transition period is specific to Spain: the aggregated numbers of accounting differences are disclosed in stage 1, and the IFRS individual adjustments on book value of equity and earnings are disclosed in stage 2. This unique reporting timeline provides an opportunity for the market both to assess the impact of those new accounting policies adopted by firms and to assess differences when compared to the previous GAAP. We find no evidence of increased value relevance after IFRS adoption. However, our results from the incremental value relevance test show that investors consider the individual reconciliation adjustments in the second stage to be valuable and significant, specifically in relation to marked‐to‐market adjustment to financial instruments, adjustments to intangibles, provisions and impairment adjustments to property, plant and equipment, adjustments to inventories, and adjustments to pension benefits. Moreover, the results are significantly higher for low leverage firms. Our findings indicate that the market prices the informativeness of the reconciliation adjustments once the transition to IFRS disclosure cycle is complete.     

Investor communication and the benefits of cross-listing

While studies have sought to explain the benefits of cross-listing, little attention has been paid to the role of communication between managers and investors during this process. In this paper, I investigate whether managers change communication policies around U.S. cross-listings. I document significant increases in communication when firms cross-list. I then test whether these investor communication practices around cross-listing are associated with capital market benefits. I find that cross-listed firms that communicate more with investors experience greater and longer lasting cross-listing benefits. Lastly, I explore two potential reasons that may lead managers to choose higher levels of communication: to support an increase in investor recognition and to facilitate monitoring. I find results consistent with communication increasing visibility and scrutiny, suggesting that communication functions as a supporting tool to achieve managers’ cross-listing goals.     

Securities Laws, Disclosure, and National Capital Markets in the Age of Financial Globalization

As barriers to international investment fall and technology improves, the cost advantages for a firm's securities to trade publicly in the country in which that firm is located and for that country to have a market for publicly traded securities distinct from the capital markets of other countries will progressively disappear. Securities laws remain an important determinant of whether and where securities are issued, how they are valued, who owns them, and where they trade. I show that there is a demand from entrepreneurs for mechanisms that allow them to commit to credible disclosure because disclosure helps reduce agency costs. Under some circumstances, mandatory disclosure through securities laws can help satisfy that demand, but only provided investors or the state can act on the information disclosed and the laws cannot be weakened ex post too much through lobbying by corporate insiders. With financial globalization, national disclosure laws can have wide-ranging effects on a country's welfare, on firms and on investor portfolios, including the extent to which share holdings reveal a home bias. In equilibrium, if firms can choose the securities laws they are subject to when they go public, some firms will choose stronger securities laws than those of the country in which they are located and some firms will do the opposite.     

The Impact of AASB 8 Operating Segments on Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts: Australian Evidence

This paper evaluates the impact of firms’ adoption of AASB 8 segment disclosure rules on analysts’ earnings forecasts. It examines whether providing more disaggregated segment information following the adoption of AASB 8 is associated with an increase in analysts’ ability to forecast earnings. We find that analysts’ earnings forecasts have not improved significantly after adopting AASB 8 in Australia, regardless of whether firms disclosed more disaggregated segment information. Our use of control firms provides assurance that the results are due to AASB 8 and not to some other events concurrent with the adoption of AASB 8. Overall, our results imply that the benefits associated with the management approach as experienced by financial analysts in the United States have not been realised by financial analysts in Australia. This suggests that the successful adoption of an accounting standard in one country should not be the justification for recommending adoption in other countries. Further, our results raise questions about whether the enhanced disclosures required in the new standard are more for the other users of financial statements, such as investors, rather than analysts.     

The Impact of Information Processing Costs on Firm Disclosure Choice: Evidence from the XBRL Mandate

This paper examines the effect of market participants’ information processing costs on firms’ disclosure choice. Using the recent eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) regulation, I find that firms increase their quantitative footnote disclosures upon implementation of XBRL detailed tagging requirements designed to reduce information users’ processing costs. These results hold in a difference‐in‐difference design using matched nonadopting firms as controls, as well as two additional identification strategies. Examination of the disclosure increase by footnote type suggests that both regulatory and nonregulatory market participants play a role in monitoring firm disclosures. Overall, these findings suggest that the processing costs of market participants can be significant enough to impact firms’ disclosure decisions.     

Credibility Attributes and Investor Perceptions of Non‐GAAP Earnings Exclusions

Recent empirical evidence suggests that investors focus more on non‐GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) than on traditional GAAP earnings because non‐GAAP earnings are believed to proxy for a firm's ongoing profitability, a measure useful for valuation. Managers determine these non‐GAAP earnings by excluding certain items from their GAAP income. However, because these non‐GAAP earnings are both unaudited and may be disclosed by a firm to manage investors’ perceptions as opposed to inform, investors must infer the credibility of the disclosure through observable firm attributes. In this study we examine whether firms with stronger credibility attributes (corporate governance, higher‐quality auditors, and higher historical information quality) will be perceived as providing more credible non‐GAAP exclusions than those with weaker attributes. Our expectation is that the market reaction to non‐GAAP earnings exclusions of firms with stronger credibility attributes will be greater than for those with weaker attributes. Our results support our expectation.     

Mandatory disclosure and learning from external market participants: Evidence from the JOBS act

This paper examines whether mandatory disclosure affects the extent to which firms learn from external market participants. Conventional wisdom suggests that mandatory disclosure should increase the total amount of information in financial markets. However, disclosure can also reduce investors' incentives to acquire and produce information. Using the JOBS Act to identify variations in disclosure requirements, this paper finds that firms with reduced disclosure requirements attract more informed investors and learn more from financial markets than those with stricter disclosure requirements. This learning is concentrated among firms that attract sophisticated investors, particularly those with industry expertise, and weakens once firms are forced to disclose more information. Overall, the results suggest that one benefit from regulators’ recent efforts to reduce U.S. firm disclosure requirements is an increase in firm learning.     

Disclosure frequency and information asymmetry

The main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether more frequent disclosure by firms is associated with lower levels of information asymmetry among investors. Using a panel of 386 firms in the US retail sector, I find that the practice of regularly providing monthly revenue disclosures is not associated with reduced information asymmetry. In contrast, I find that more detailed (greater quantity) disclosure is associated with reduced information asymmetry. I provide preliminary evidence that the distinction between disclosure frequency and disclosure quantity is due to more frequent disclosure providing an incentive for increased private information acquisition by sophisticated investors. The results indicate that the relation between disclosure and information asymmetry is multi-dimensional and varies depending on the disclosure attribute being studied.     

Segment Disclosure Transparency and Internal Capital Market Efficiency: Evidence from SFAS No. 131

Using the adoption of SFAS 131, I examine the effect of segment disclosure transparency on internal capital market efficiency. SFAS 131 requires firms to define segments as internally viewed by managers, thereby improving the transparency of managerial actions in internal capital allocation. I find that diversified firms that improved segment disclosure transparency by changing segment definitions upon adoption of SFAS 131 experienced an improvement in capital allocation efficiency in internal capital markets after the adoption of SFAS 131. In addition, I find that the improvement in internal capital market efficiency was greater for firms that suffered more severe agency problems before the adoption of SFAS 131 and also for firms whose managers faced stronger incentives to improve efficiency after the adoption of SFAS 131. My results suggest that more transparent segment information can help resolve agency conflicts in the internal capital markets of diversified firms, thus improving investment efficiency.     

Does Regulation FD work? Evidence from analysts' reliance on public disclosure

We examine how Regulation FD changed analysts' reliance on firms' public disclosure. Regulation FD is associated with a stronger analyst response to earnings announcements, management forecasts and conference calls—that is, analysts respond to these events more quickly, more frequently and with larger forecast revisions after FD. Further, following public disclosure, the decline in analyst forecast dispersion and forecast error accelerates after FD. We find no such changes either for foreign ADR firms or around several confounding events. Overall, Regulation FD levels the playing field between the analysts and individual investors, thereby promoting “fair game” property of the market.     

Money shouts! How effective are punishments for accounting fraud?

This study examines the impact of different punishments for Chinese accounting fraud on shareholder valuation of firms between 2007 and 2016. From an examination of both monetary and non-monetary ‘name and shame’ penalties, it is reported all punishments have a negative and significant impact on the shareholder wealth of fraudulent firms. Investors perceive punishments involving monetary penalties far more severely than non-monetary punishments used to combat accounting fraud. Stock market reactions are also sensitive to the type of fraud committed with manipulation of recognition and disclosure fraud viewed more negatively by investors than fraud related to disclosure. Information leakage to capital markets prior to the announcement of punishments is also observed. It is proposed fines have been relatively more effective, than ‘name and shame’ punishments in addressing Chinese accounting fraud during the last decade, due not least to information leakage.     

The new Form 8-K disclosures

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has mandated new disclosure requirements in Form 8-K, which became effective on August 23, 2004. The SEC expanded the list of items that have to be reported and accelerated the timeliness of these reports. This study examines the market reactions to 8-Ks filed under the new SEC regime and investigates whether periodic reports (10-K/Qs) became less informative under the new 8-K disclosure rules. We observe that the newly required 8-K items constitute over half of all filings and that most firms disclose the required items within the new shortened period (four business days). We find that all disclosed items (old and new) are associated with abnormal volume and return volatility around both the event and the SEC filing dates, and some items have significant return drifts after the SEC filings. Surprisingly, we find that the information content of periodic reports has not diminished by the more expansive and timely 8-K disclosures under the new guidance, possibly indicating that investors may use periodic filings to interpret the effects of material events that had been disclosed earlier.