Regulation is often proposed, developed, and finalized over a lengthy rule-making period prior to its adoption. We examine the period over which banking authorities discussed, adopted, and implemented Basel III to understand how firms respond to proposed regulation. We find evidence to suggest that affected banks not only lobbied rule-makers against it but also made strategic financial reporting changes and altered their business models in ways that reduced their exposure to the proposed rule prior to rule-makers finalizing the regulation. Further, our results indicate a sequential response, with banks responding through lobbying and strategic financial reporting prior to making business model changes. These findings highlight the interplay among firms’ financial reporting, business model, and political choices in response to proposed regulation and indicate that the appropriate date for an event study may be the regulation’s announcement date rather than its adoption or implementation dates

Insurance pricing is subject to stricter regulation in some states than others. This cross-sectional variation, coupled with the occurrence of staggered deregulation in several states, enables a powerful test of the political cost hypothesis that managers manipulate accruals to mitigate adverse effects of rate regulation. We show that insurers understate their loss reserve accruals in more regulated regimes, a finding that contrasts with most prior studies documenting expense-increasing accruals in regulatory pricing settings like utilities. We theorize and find evidence that regulator-enabled cartel-like collective rate making leads to premiums being higher than the competitive level. Our results are consistent with accounting manipulation being used to justify deviating from these high rates and showcase a role for accounting in cartel enforcement

Complex disclosures have long been a major source of borrowers’ poor understanding of mortgages. We examine the effect of simplifying mortgage disclosures in a difference-in-differences design around a significant disclosure rule mandated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2015. We find that inexperienced borrowers (first-time home buyers) pay significantly lower interest rates after the disclosure regulation than experienced borrowers (repeat buyers), suggesting that simplifying these disclosures reduces mortgage interest costs. Additional tests show that the reduction in interest costs is not accompanied with more upfront noninterest costs paid by borrowers. Our cross-sectional analyses reveal two mechanisms through which simplifying disclosures lowers interest costs: curbing predatory lending and facilitating borrower shopping. We further find that disadvantaged borrowers (Black, Hispanic, and single female) benefit more from simplified disclosures. Last, we do not find that simplifying disclosures affects mortgage loan performance

We conduct an experiment in the securities-based crowdfunding setting to investigate whether some investors avoid accounting information for psychological reasons, even when they understand the information is useful in their decision-making. Results suggest investors who experience relatively more psychological discomfort when working with quantitative information are relatively less likely to acquire the financial statements of a potential crowdfunding investment. Importantly, this effect is incremental to any effect of investors' quantitative ability (i.e., their numeracy) and attenuates with an intervention designed to help investors overcome their psychological discomfort. Altogether, the results extend our understanding of the theory of information avoidance, provide a behavioral explanation for investors' documented underuse of accounting information, and can inform regulators as they revise crowdfunding regulations

We examine the evolution of accounting regulation by linking disclosure policies and investments in a dynamic voting model. The disclosure policies are the outcome of voting by entrepreneurs, whose preferences are influenced by their investments. The investments are in turn endogenously determined by current and future disclosure policies. Absent external influences, accounting regimes are stable. A disclosure regime of high (low) quality and a strong (weak) economy coexist and reinforce each other. However, regulatory interventions can result in regime changes by changing the entrepreneurs’ expectations, even without direct enforcement. Unexpected shocks could also result in regime changes by impacting economic conditions and hence voter composition. Our analysis provides a framework to study the interaction between accounting regulation and firms’ economic decisions

Corporate managers often express concern about accounting-induced volatility in financial statements. Accounting regulators, however, argue that the volatility in financial statements merely increases transparency by shining a light on risks that are inherent to the firm’s business. We show that in many situations managerial concerns about volatility are justified because the information that is being provided actually magnifies rather than merely reflects the volatility in a firm’s fundamentals. Corporate managers anticipate the magnified volatility and take preemptive actions to decrease the firm’s exposure to the accounting treatment that induces volatility. These actions may not be in the best interests of external stakeholders, making disclosure costly, while at the same time improving the decisions of external stakeholders. We develop and study the resultant tradeoff that accounting regulators should consider in setting accounting standards

Staff at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conduct recurring reviews of firms’ filings to deter misconduct and facilitate investor access to high-quality information. We identify the names of SEC staff who work on a comment letter and examine whether their prior involvement (i.e., continuity) is associated with comment letter quality. Our results are consistent with continuity leading to lower-quality comment letters. Continuity is associated with fewer substantive comments, agreed-upon disclosure changes, and greater similarity between consecutive comment letter reviews. These results are consistent with continuity increasing staffs’ tendency to focus on familiar issues and overlook other areas of potential deficiencies. Time, changes in firms’ operations, and increasing staffs’ feelings of accountability can mitigate the negative effect of continuity on comment letter quality. Our study suggests benefits to a fresh perspective in regulatory monitoring.

There is an ongoing debate over uniformity versus flexibility in accounting regulation. This study examines the financial reporting consequences of a rigid accounting rule in China under which the fiscal year-end is uniform for all companies. Using extensive interviews together with large-sample archival analyses, we find that “mismatched” firms—those whose mandated financial reporting cycles are not aligned with their business cycles—exhibit higher levels of absolute abnormal accruals than their nonmismatched counterparts. Further analyses suggest that the negative association between mismatching and financial reporting quality is mainly driven by unintentional estimation errors rather than intentional earnings manipulation. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

We study the effect of executives’ pledges of integrity on firms’ financial reporting outcomes by exploiting a 2016 regulation that requires holders of Dutch professional accounting degrees to pledge an integrity oath. We identify chief executive officers (CEOs) and chief financial officers (CFOs) required to take the integrity oath and find that firms reduce income-increasing discretionary accruals after executives took the oath. These firms also reduce discretionary expenditures, indicating that oath-taking executives reduce overall earnings management and do not merely substitute accruals-based with real-activities earnings management. These effects are concentrated in firms where the CFO took the oath. Overall, our results indicate that integrity oaths for executives improve firms’ financial reporting quality. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

Data breach disclosure laws are state-level disclosure mandates intended to protect individuals from the consequences of identity theft. However, we argue that the laws help reduce shareholder risk by encouraging managers to take real actions to reduce firms’ exposure to cyber risk. Consistent with this argument, we find an on-average decrease in shareholder risk, proxied by cost of equity, after the staggered passage of these laws. We also find the effect is attenuated for firms that already took real actions to manage cyber risk before the laws. Further, after these laws, firms are more likely to increase cybersecurity investments and have a cybersecurity officer. Finally, we observe positive abnormal returns on key dates related to the passage of these laws. Our collective evidence suggests that consumer protection disclosure mandates can benefit shareholders and, specifically, that regulators can use disclosure mandates to incentivize managers to reduce firms’ exposure to cyber risk. Data Availability: All data used in this study are publicly available