This article develops a theory of standard-setting in which accounting standards emerge endogenously from an institutional bargaining process. It provides a unified framework with investment and voluntary disclosure to examine the links between regulatory institutions and accounting choice. We show that disclosure rules tend to be more comprehensive when controlled by a self-regulated professional organization than when they are under the direct oversight of elected politicians. These institutions may not implement standards desirable to diversified investors and, when voluntary disclosures are possible, allowing choice between competing standards increases market value over a single uniform standard. Several new testable hypotheses are also offered to explain differences in accounting regulations.

We model an information mosaic in which multiple signals—one gathered by an informed trader and the other publicly disclosed by the manager of the firm—are combined to estimate firm value. Under testable conditions, voluntary disclosures lead to higher ex ante information asymmetry and expected profits for the informed trader by allowing him to refine his trading strategy and complete his information mosaic. The informed trader's ability to combine information and enhance his advantage is more prevalent when there is more uncertainty about whether the news is favorable or unfavorable, the manager is more likely to be informed, and the manager's information is precise (i.e., disclosure quality is high).