Bushee et al. (J. Accounting Econom. 34 (2003) 149–180) is a timely study in an area—corporate disclosure policy—that is increasingly important to regulators, corporate managers, and academics. The authors report several results that will be of interest to these groups. I describe the corporate disclosure issues that make the authors’ research questions of broader relevance than their specific topic might suggest. I then provide comments on theoretical and empirical aspects of the study. Overall, the study is likely to be useful in helping us understand some of the forces at work as corporate disclosure becomes more rapid, more comprehensive, and more open

Researchers often restrict their sample selection to either December or non-December Compustat companies. However, no one has rigorously investigated the implications of this restriction. This paper compares financial characteristics of December and non-December year-end companies. December year-end firms are larger and have smaller betas as compared to companies with non-December year-ends. There are some strong industry concentrations in December year-ends, most notably in the regulated or recently deregulated industries. Retail sales firms have primarily non-December year-ends. A comparison of leverage ratios does not reveal a stable systematic difference between December and non-December year-end companies

We show that firms with executive bonuses that qualify for deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) were less likely to expense stock option compensation (SOC) in 2002. Additionally, the more likely it is that a qualified firm will incur re-contracting costs, the less likely it is that the firm will expense SOC. CEOs of qualified firms that also expense SOC receive smaller bonuses than CEOs of expensing firms that are not qualified under 162(m), and the lower 162(m) bonuses are not offset by higher SOC. Our results suggest that 162(m) tax incentives are an important determinant of the decision to expense SOC.

Regulators and small audit firms allege that audit firm size does not affect audit quality and therefore should be irrelevant in the selection of an auditor. Contrary to this view, the current paper argues that audit quality is not independent of audit firm size, even when auditors initially possesses identical technological capabilities. In particular, when incumbent auditors earn client-specific quasi-rents, auditors with a greater number of clients have ‘more to lose’ by failing to report a discovered breach in a particular client's records. This collateral aspect increases the audit quality supplied by larger audit firms. The implications for some recent recommendations of the AICPA Special Committee on Small and Medium Sized Firms are developed

We develop an approach based on publicly available data to decompose and quantify tax avoidance into two separate components: tax rate avoidance and tax base avoidance. Our measures are based on the average statutory tax rate, which accounts for the statutory tax rates across all transactions of a firm. We illustrate and validate our measures using simulation data, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, changes in tax rate avoidance and tax base avoidance across time, bonus depreciation time periods, several sample splits of U.S. multinational and domestic firms, differences across industries, and firms operating in tax haven locations. The measures allow regulators and researchers to gain insights into these two conceptually different tax avoidance strategies

We examine annual report text for over 15,000 non-US companies from 42 countries over the period 1998–2011, focusing on the length of disclosure, presence of boilerplate, comparability with US and non-US firms, and complexity. We find that textual attributes are predictably associated with regulation and incentives for more transparent disclosure and are correlated with economic outcomes such as liquidity, institutional ownership, and analyst following. Using mandatory IFRS adoption as an exogenous shock, annual report disclosure improved in the sense that quantity of disclosure increased, boilerplate was reduced, and comparability increased relative to both US and non-US firms. Firms with the greatest improvements in financial reporting experienced the greatest improvements in economic outcomes around IFRS adoption

Regulation G requires all companies to quantitatively reconcile pro forma earnings with GAAP earnings. This paper provides three findings related to the impact of reconciliations on mispricing of pro forma earnings. First, prior to Reg G, we find that mispricing of pro forma earnings is limited to firms with low reconciliation quality. There is no evidence of mispricing for firms with high reconciliation quality. Second, we find no evidence of mispricing after Reg G. Third, there is a cross-Reg G reduction of mispricing for firms whose reconciliation quality improves, and there continues to be no mispricing for firms that have high reconciliation quality both before and after Reg G. Together, our results support the notion that better reconciliations reduce the extent of mispricing

Utama and Cready [Utama, S., Cready, W.M., 1997. Institutional ownership, differential predisclosure precision and trading volume at announcement dates. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 129–150] use total institutional ownership to proxy for the proportion of better-informed traders, an important determinant of trading around earnings announcements. We argue that institutions holding small stakes cannot justify the fixed cost of developing private predisclosure information. Also, institutions with large stakes generally do not trade around earnings announcements since they are dedicated investors or face regulations that make informed trading difficult. However, institutions holding medium stakes have incentives to develop private predisclosure information and trade on it; we show that their ownership is a finer proxy for the proportion of better-informed traders at earnings announcements

This paper explores the effects of public information such as accounting earnings in a competitive lending setting with risk shifting. Debt financing creates incentives for borrowers to take on excessive risks, in particular in bad states of the world. If a privately informed inside creditor bids against outside creditors to extend a loan, public information levels the playing field, which affects the bidding and risk shifting. Nonetheless, a perfect public signal would yield the least efficient outcome: introducing some measurement noise alleviates risk shifting by subjecting outside creditors to the winner’s curse, allowing borrowers in bad states cheaper access to loans. However, for pessimistic priors about the borrower, greater public signal precision can alleviate risk shifting, at the margin. We discuss implications for financial reporting regulations along the business cycle and for creditor turnover

This paper examines whether mandatory disclosure affects the extent to which firms learn from external market participants. Conventional wisdom suggests that mandatory disclosure should increase the total amount of information in financial markets. However, disclosure can also reduce investors' incentives to acquire and produce information. Using the JOBS Act to identify variations in disclosure requirements, this paper finds that firms with reduced disclosure requirements attract more informed investors and learn more from financial markets than those with stricter disclosure requirements. This learning is concentrated among firms that attract sophisticated investors, particularly those with industry expertise, and weakens once firms are forced to disclose more information. Overall, the results suggest that one benefit from regulators’ recent efforts to reduce U.S. firm disclosure requirements is an increase in firm learning