Silence can be golden: On the value of allowing managers to keep silent when information is soft

Most information that public firms are required to disclose is relatively hard (e.g., historical information), whereas the disclosure of relevant information that is softer in nature (e.g., forward-looking information) is typically left to firms' discretion. The lack of a mandatory requirement to disclose soft information has been at the heart of a number of on-going accounting debates. This study shows that while mandating disclosure increases the frequency of disclosure, it results in a reduction in disclosure quality when information is soft. By exploring this tradeoff, the paper sheds light on the merits of restricting mandatory disclosure requirements to verifiable information and leaving disclosure of soft information unregulated. The value of leaving disclosure unregulated is shown to be maximized when managers are given bonus-based compensation, with minimum performance thresholds and maximum caps, similar to those documented in the literature.     

Enforcement of Optimal Disclosure Rules in the Presence of Moral Hazard

Abstract

This paper analyzes the role of disclosure enforcement mechanisms (such as SEC enforcement teams and corporate governance systems) in directing the disclosure practices of managers when the information is used by shareholders to monitor the manager. The paper establishes a role for a disclosure enforcement system by showing that in its absence it is impossible to simultaneously induce a manager to adopt the desirable disclosure strategy and use the disclosure efficiently to monitor him. The paper shows how the effectiveness of the disclosure enforcement system and the cost of disclosure influence (i) the economic viability of the disclosure enforcement system, (ii) the disclosure policy of the manager, and (iii) the value of including stock options in the manager's compensation package.