Knowledge that Transforms

Between 2010 and 2017, Chinese investors used an investor interactive platform (IIP) to ask public companies around 2.5 million questions, the vast majority of which received a reply within two weeks. We analyze these IIP dialogues using a BERT-based algorithm and provide preliminary evidence on their causes and consequences. Our analyses show most questions reflect investors’ difficulties in processing information already in the public domain. Controlling for other news, higher IIP activity is associated with increases in trading volume, return volatility, market liquidity, and price informativeness as well as decreases in bid-ask spread. Financial statement-related postings increase around the adoption of new accounting standards. Collectively, our results show that investors face significant information processing costs but that IIP activities help reduce these costs, leading to improvements in stock price formation.

Advocacy groups have responded to the lack of political solutions to some of the greatest problems we face—from climate change to armed conflicts—by lobbying for securities regulation that increases corporate transparency. They aim to incentivize corporations to address problems that lack other political solutions. I discuss what we can (and cannot) learn about the efficacy of reporting mandates from the findings in Darendeli et al. (2022) and related papers that stakeholders respond to greater availability of corporate social responsibility information. I support my arguments with evidence from mandatory conflict mineral disclosures—to date, the only related US securities regulation. Although stakeholder responses are likely necessary to incentivize changes in corporate behavior, they are insufficient to justify a mandate. A convincing justification must explain how reporting mandates lead to socially beneficial real effects, are best overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and are less costly than alternative policy instruments. So far, proponents of reporting mandates have, at best, provided incomplete justifications. These circumstances are problematic given the current push for mandatory reporting related to issues such as climate change and workplace diversity.

This paper investigates how information uncertainty, measured through variation in the informativeness of the public information environment, shapes the organizational design choices of firms. I posit that, when faced with higher uncertainty about demand and supply, managers are more likely to establish links to customer/supplier industries through high-level hiring decisions and vertical integration, thereby facilitating access to information about these industries. Consistent with this hypothesis, I find that firms modify their hiring and, to a lesser extent, vertical integration decisions in response to variation in the informativeness of the public information environment about demand and supply, measured with two distinct empirical approaches. Further, I observe that these organizational design choices correlate with the efficiency of inventory management and investment sensitivity to growth opportunities; this finding is consistent with organizational design facilitating access to information otherwise unavailable to managers through public sources.

Using unique disclosures from the insurance industry, we identify instances where auditors plausibly allow clients to opportunistically utilize discretion in accounting estimates to manipulate losses to reported profits (i.e., auditor lenience). Auditing standards and SEC guidance state that auditors should consider whether a misstatement shifts a loss to a profit as a qualitative factor when evaluating the materiality of misstatements. We find that audit office lenience is positively associated with subsequent market share changes. The effect is driven by increases in the likelihood of keeping existing, non-manipulating clients. In generalizability tests, we find similar inferences in the banking industry when using bank-specific disclosures and across all industries when measuring auditor lenience using likelihood of issuing going-concern opinions. These results highlight settings where auditors may be rewarded for lenience, specifically when management values financial reporting discretion and auditors can avoid publicized audit failures.

We investigate whether non-GAAP earnings disclosures increase stock price crash risk. Consistent with non-GAAP disclosures allowing managers to inflate investors’ perceptions about firm performance, our results indicate that income increasing non-GAAP reporting increases crash risk. We also find that managers can use non-GAAP reporting as a substitute for earnings management to withhold bad news from investors (the traditional explanation for crashes). Finally, we find a positive association between non-GAAP reporting and the likelihood of subsequent events that can trigger a crash. Overall, our evidence is consistent with some non-GAAP disclosures exposing investors to risks of large and sudden price declines.

Initial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) announcements are important economic signals that convey information on the state of the economy but contain substantial estimation error. We investigate how GDP estimation errors affect firms' real decisions and profitability. We find that GDP estimation errors are positively associated with one-quarter-ahead changes in firms’ capital investments, production, inventory, and profitability. However, we observe long-run profitability reversals, which is consistent with initial over (under) production eventually being met with declines (increases) in future profitability. Furthermore, managerial responses to the estimation errors mimic the response to the true component of the GDP signal, suggesting that managers do not filter estimation errors and overreact to both GDP signal components. Our firm-level findings translate to the macroeconomic level, where we find that a long-run reversal follows a positive short-run aggregate investment response to GDP signal components.

Several recent studies argue that the adoption of universal demand (UD) laws represent an exogenous decline in litigation risk by increasing the procedural hurdles associated with shareholder derivative litigation. This study examines how UD laws affect the incidence of derivative litigation risk and related decisions. We show that the adoption of UD laws had no meaningful impact on derivative litigation from 1996 to 2015. We also find no evidence that UD laws affect aggressive accounting, voluntary disclosure, executive compensation, or corporate governance decisions. Collectively, our findings cast doubt on the validity of using UD laws as an exogenous shock to litigation risk.

We examine how the market power of credit rating agencies (CRAs) affects their rating standards. Using a global sample across 26 countries from 1994 to 2019, we find that greater market power of global CRAs, measured by their country-level market shares, is associated with stricter corporate ratings. In addition, the increase in global CRAs' market shares contributes to the tightening trend in their credit ratings worldwide. Exploiting the NRSRO designation of local CRAs in Japan, we find that global CRAs issue more inflated ratings following a decline in their market power. Further, global CRAs' greater market power is associated with timelier ratings, fewer missed defaults, but more false warnings. Collectively, our findings suggest that global rating agencies' market power leads to stricter rating standards and timelier ratings by strengthening the agencies’ reputation concerns, but at the expense of increased false warnings.

SEC confidential treatment (CT) orders are regulatory exemptions that enable firms to redact proprietary information from SEC filings if the disclosure would cause competitive harm and if the information is immaterial to investors. This study examines the role of firms' political connections in the SEC's decisions to approve versus reject CT requests before and after Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny into the CT process. CT requests from politically connected firms are less likely to be rejected before Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny and are more likely to be rejected following these events. When the SEC rejects CT requests, firms must disclose the contents of the unapproved redactions. These disclosures are informative to investors, on average, and are less informative following Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny. Together, these findings contribute to the literature on political influence in SEC oversight and disclosure regulation and provide unique evidence on the role of Congressional intervention in SEC decision making.

One of the most significant capital market developments over the last two decades has been the growth of private capital markets—markets that raise capital outside of publicly traded venues and can face substantially less mandated public financial reporting. Understanding the causes and consequences of the relative growth of private capital markets is a first order research question. As private capital markets have grown, interest in regulating and researching private markets has increased. Research that is informative about the costs and benefits of regulating private capital markets should be in high demand. Kim and Olbert (2022, KO hereafter) dive into this arena to ask whether additional private firm disclosure affects public capital markets. KO find that as private firms disclose more financial statement information, the public equity holdings of mutual funds and ETFs decline. KO infer from their findings that increased private company disclosure results in negative pecuniary externalities for public companies. In this paper, I discuss KO's intriguing findings and suggest areas where research can build off and sharpen the inferences of this paper. In particular, future work can validate KO's measure of private company disclosure and consider the causal mechanism for investment in private firms.