Knowledge that Transforms

We examine how firms respond to requests for enhanced disclosure that we make on an online investor platform. Exploiting variation in firms' customer and supplier disclosures, we ask a randomized set of non-disclosing firms to provide information on their customers' and suppliers' identities. We find that the firms' probability of disclosure depends on the basis we give for the demand—requests appealing to disclosure's usefulness to investors lead to more frequent disclosure, while those appealing to regulators' preference for disclosure lead to less frequent disclosure. The requests we make on the platform lead to more frequent customer- and supplier-related inquiries from other platform users. We also find that the treatment firms' disclosure of customer and supplier information improves in the next period's regulatory filings. The findings suggest that investor platforms can enhance corporate transparency by increasing retail investors' ability to demand information.

We use a proprietary database with detailed, employee-specific compensation contract information for rank-and-file corporate accountants who are directly involved in the financial reporting process to assess their influence on their firms' financial reporting quality. Theory predicts that paying above-market wages can both attract employees with more human capital and subsequently encourage better performance. Consistent with audit committees structuring accountants' compensation to mitigate financial misreporting that might otherwise occur, we find that firms with relatively well-paid accountants tend to issue higher-quality financial reports. Moreover, this relationship is more pronounced when firms’ senior executives have stronger contractual incentives to misreport and when the audit committee is more independent from management.

In 2013, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a database of consumer complaints filed against banks under its supervision (“CFPB banks”). We find that after the disclosure, rival banks exhibit a greater increase in mortgage approval rates in markets with more intensive mortgage complaints about CFPB banks. The effect is weaker when rivals have more expertise in the local market, are less concerned about credit risk due to mortgage sales, and locate in areas with more alternative information about the CFPB banks. The effect is concentrated in severe complaints and complaints related to loan underwriting practices. In addition to approving more loans, rivals also open more branches and are more likely to post a job opening in these markets. The findings suggest that these banks learn from the nonfinancial disclosures about operational deficiencies of peers (i.e., CFPB banks) in local markets, which alleviates their adverse selection concern about expanding.

This paper shows that mandating some firms to disclose more while leaving other firms disclosing voluntarily is less effective in improving and may even harm the overall information environment when firms' disclosures are endogenous. Although the regulated firms' increased disclosure directly reduces all firms' cost of capital, it crowds out the unregulated firms' voluntary disclosure and thus increases all firms’ cost of capital indirectly. Under certain circumstances, the negative indirect effect can outweigh the direct benefit. These results are consistent with the scant evidence on the cost-of-capital effect of mandatory disclosure. The model highlights the importance of the market-wide effects of disclosure regulation and facilitates quantitative cost-benefit analyses for specific regulatory proposals.

We take advantage of a new composite measure of political risk (Hassan et al., 2019) to study the effects of firm-level political risk on private debt markets. First, we use panel data tests and exploit the redrawing of US congressional districts to uncover plausibly exogenous variation in firm-level political risk. We show that borrowers’ political risk is linked to interest rates set by lenders. Second, we test for the transmission of political risk from lenders to borrowers. We predict and find that lender-level political risk propagates to borrowers through lending relationships. Our analysis allows for endogenous matching between lenders and borrowers and indicates the presence of network effects in diffusing political risk throughout the economy. Finally, we introduce new text-based methods to analyze the distinct sources of political risk to lenders and borrowers and provide textual evidence of the transmission of political risk from lenders to borrowers.

Little is known about how the SEC selects its targets for investigation. We study this subject using a new database of formal SEC investigations. We predict and find that case selection is associated with a firm's (i) likelihood of regulatory noncompliance, (ii) exposure to private sector scrutiny, and (iii) conspicuous public trigger events. The relationship between investigations and regulatory noncompliance and private sector scrutiny preferences is sensitive to SEC constraints, whereas the relationship with triggers is not. We also examine the association between investigation motives and enforcement actions, an important SEC outcome reported to Congress. While regulatory noncompliance-motivated and public trigger-motivated investigations are more likely to result in public charges, specifically when the SEC is constrained, private sector scrutiny-motivated investigations are less likely to result in public charges. Finally, investigation rates of potential targets are associated with the career trajectories of SEC personnel, while investigation outcomes are not.

We examine broad effects of MiFID II, which mandated unbundled pricing of analyst research in the European Union beginning in 2018. We find significant reductions in sell-side analyst following, particularly for firms for which the marginal analyst was less important (larger, older, less volatile firms with greater coverage and more accurate forecasts). High quality analysts (more accurate, experienced, and in positions of seniority) were more likely to leave the sell-side and move to the buy-side, while remaining sell-side analysts increased efforts to make their forecasts more informative (more accurate, more detailed, and more likely to include informative recommendations resulting in larger stock price responses). Firms responded to a loss of sell-side coverage with more frequent, forward-looking, and informative investor relations events, especially for firms that lost the most coverage. Our results support recent theoretical analysis predicting that unbundling had significant implications for sell-side research, buy-side research, and firm responses.

Previous studies find mixed evidence on whether institutional investors exploit capital market anomalies. Examining a large sample of accounting-based anomalies, we find that institutions trade in the wrong direction of overreaction anomalies, but in the right direction of underreaction anomalies. These heterogenous trading patterns, rather than reflecting institutions' differential anomaly trading skills, can be simply explained by institutions’ tendency to trade in the same direction as the sentiment of news. Examining earnings news and a comprehensive sample of newswire releases, we find strong support for this explanation. Finally, institutional trading appears to exacerbate (mitigate) mispricing associated with overreaction (underreaction) anomalies.

We review the accounting literature on innovation, focusing on the economic attributes of innovation that collectively differentiate innovation from other assets: novelty, nonrivalry, and partial excludability. These attributes help innovation drive economic growth but create unique information-based challenges that accounting information and researchers are well suited to address. We discuss the definition and measurement of innovation and highlight common mistakes researchers make when measuring innovation and when using sources of plausibly exogenous variation. We then review the accounting literatures on the disclosure, management, financial reporting, taxation, and contracting and financing of innovation. For each of these literatures we identify challenges and opportunities for future research.

Minnis, Sutherland, and Vetter (MSV) documents a sharp decline in lenders’ collection of attested financial statements (including unqualified audits, reviews, and compilations) over the period 2002 to 2017. They attribute this change to lenders adopting new technology and new non-bank lenders entering the lending market. In this discussion, I explore several dimensions of their findings. First, I provide a framework for usefulness of financial statement information in debt contracting. Using this framework, I consider how financial statements may be useful for the small and medium loans the authors study, and how this role could be disrupted. Second, I consider how financial technology (FinTech) has disrupted traditional lending and potentially changed the role of financial statements. Finally, I consider the implications for this change on the accounting profession.