Investors are central to the incorporation of firm information in capital markets, yet it is challenging to observe the particular information they use and struggle with. Lee and Zhong (2022) use online investor interactions with Chinese public firms to document evidence that investors face significant processing costs. They find that when investor interactions occur, capital markets behave as if the information environment has improved, with increased trading activity, liquidity, and timely pricing of the quarter's earnings in returns. My discussion highlights the contributions of Lee and Zhong's findings to the processing cost, retail investor, and investor interactions literatures. I also describe empirical challenges faced by this and similar studies. I encourage using the details of interactions to disentangle the nature of processing costs and to increase support for causal conclusions more generally. Finally, I note several topics related to investor interaction that would benefit from further research.

ABSTRACT 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.

I provide a general framework of firms’ financial communication process and investor response to information, moving from disclosure through dissemination to investor response and management response. I then discuss the entrance of social media into firm communications, highlighting both classic and unique aspects of social media in the communication process. I place Cade (2018) in this literature and discuss areas ripe for future research. Finally, I encourage researchers interested in social media to acknowledge and embrace the unique opportunities and challenges in this area.

ABSTRACT We investigate the frictions that impede individual investors’ use of accounting information and, in particular, their costs of monitoring and acquiring accounting disclosures. We do so using an archival setting in which individuals are presented with automated media articles that report both current earnings news and past stock returns. Although these investors have earnings information readily available, we find no evidence that their trades incorporate it. Instead we find that their trading responds to the trailing stock returns presented in the articles. Our study raises questions about the efficacy of regulations that aim to aid less sophisticated investors by increasing their awareness of and access to accounting information.

This paper reviews the literature examining how costs of monitoring for, acquiring, and analyzing firm disclosures – collectively, “disclosure processing costs” – affect investor information choices, trades, and market outcomes. The existence of disclosure processing costs means that disclosures are not “public” information as traditionally defined, but instead can be a form of costly private information. Conceptualizing disclosures as private information makes it clear that learning from disclosures is an active economic choice and that disclosure pricing cannot be perfectly efficient. We review the analytical and empirical literature on sources of processing costs and how these costs affect equity market outcomes, primarily within rational equilibria. We also discuss studies of the feedback effects of investors' processing costs on managers’ choices about disclosure and corporate actions. We conclude that disclosure processing costs have implications for a wide array of accounting research and phenomena, but we are only just beginning to understand their effects.

ABSTRACT Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) will likely alter many aspects of the financial reporting process and spawn a deep stream of academic research. We take an early step by examining the extent to which firms have begun using GAI in one important part of the reporting process: writing disclosures. We begin by evaluating a commercial tool's ability to detect GAI writing in disclosures, and we find that it reliably identifies even very small amounts of GAI usage in realistic samples. We then examine firms’ actual earnings press releases, conference call prepared remarks, risk factors, MD&As, and IPO filings through 2024 and find statistically significant GAI usage in all five disclosure types, with up to 4.5% of new text written by GAI in 2024. Usage is predictably higher in the cross‐section, and filings with higher GAI have systematically different linguistic properties. Our study provides early insights into the use and effects of GAI in financial reporting, and it motivates future research in this evolving area.

This paper examines the relation between cognitive perceptions of management and firm valuation. We develop a composite measure of investor perception using 30-second content-filtered video clips of initial public offering (IPO) roadshow presentations. We show that this measure, designed to capture viewers’ overall perceptions of a CEO, is positively associated with pricing at all stages of the IPO (proposed price, offer price, and end of first day of trading). The result is robust to controls for traditional determinants of firm value. We also show that firms with highly perceived management are more likely to be matched to high-quality underwriters. In further exploratory analyses, we find the impact is greater for firms with more uncertain language in their written S-1. Taken together, our results provide evidence that investors’ instinctive perceptions of management are incorporated into their assessments of firm value.