In this study we use the recently mandated risk factor disclosure to examine the spillover effect of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) review of qualitative corporate disclosure. We find that firms not receiving any comment letter (“No‐letter Firms”) modify their subsequent year's disclosures to a larger extent if the SEC has commented on the risk factor disclosure of (i) the industry leader, (ii) a close rival, or (iii) numerous industry peers. We refer to this effect as “spillover.” Further, we find that after SEC comments on the industry leader's disclosure, No‐letter Firms also provide more firm‐specific disclosures in the subsequent year. The increased disclosure specificity reduces these firms’ likelihood of receiving SEC risk disclosure comments on their new filings. Our evidence suggests an indirect effect of the SEC review of qualitative disclosure.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has expressed concern about the informativeness of firms’ Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) disclosures. A firm's MD&A is potentially uninformative if it does not change appreciably from the previous year after significant economic changes at the firm. We introduce a measure for narrative disclosure—the degree to which the MD&A differs from the previous disclosure—and provide three findings on the usefulness of MD&A disclosure. First, firms with larger economic changes modify the MD&A more than those with smaller economic changes. Second, the magnitude of stock price responses to 10‐K filings is positively associated with the MD&A modification score, but analyst earnings forecast revisions are unassociated with the score, suggesting that investors—but not analysts—use MD&A information. Finally, MD&A modification scores have declined in the past decade even as MD&A disclosures have become longer; the price reaction to MD&A modification scores has also weakened, suggesting a decline in MD&A usefulness.

Firms are required to provide financial information via the financial statements and the management discussion and analysis (MD&A), a narrative explanation of the financial statements. Our study examines how firms use the MD&A channel when their financial statement channel is inadequate. We focus on two textual attributes of the MD&A: non‐GAAP disclosure and forward‐looking statements. We find that firms with less adequate financial statements discuss non‐GAAP measures more and provide a larger number of forward‐looking statements. We then identify the topics, and therefore the context, in which non‐GAAP and forward‐looking disclosures are provided. Our study provides evidence on how managers use the MD&A, a relatively more flexible channel, to provide information when their financial statement channel is less adequate.

Depuis quelques années, les annonces de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels font l’objet de sévères critiques, leurs détracteurs affirmant qu’elles incitent à la gestion à courte vue et à d’autres péchés. C’est pourquoi les institutions influentes enjoignent aux dirigeants de cesser la publication de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels. Les auteurs examinent empiriquement les causes de cet abandon de la publication de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels et constatent que la piètre performance opérationnelle — bénéfices à la baisse, résultats inférieurs aux prévisions des analystes et rentabilité prévue plus faible — est le principal motif pour lequel les entreprises abandonnent les annonces de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels. Dans les entreprises qui ont abandonné ces annonces, les auteurs n’observent pas de croissance appréciable de l’investissement à long terme après que les dirigeants se soient libérés de la myopie des investisseurs. Contrairement à l’affirmation selon laquelle les entreprises publieraient davantage d’autres informations à caractère prévisionnel en remplacement des annonces de résultats trimestriels et prévisionnels, les auteurs constatent que les entreprises se dérobent. Ils observent également une détérioration de l’environnement informationnel des entreprises qui cessent la publication de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels, détérioration qui se manifeste par un plus grand nombre d’erreurs dans les prévisions des analystes et une plus grande dispersion des prévisions et par une diminution de l’intérêt des analystes. Ces constatations révèlent, dans leur ensemble, que les entreprises qui abandonnent les annonces de résultats trimestriels prévisionnels sont principalement des entreprises en difficulté, et que la décision d’abandon n’est avantageuse ni pour les entreprises qui la prennent ni pour leurs investisseurs.

The expectations management literature has so far focused on firms meeting the analyst consensus forecast—the expectations of analysts as a group—at earnings announcements. In this study we argue that investors may use individual analyst forecasts as additional benchmarks in evaluating reported earnings because the consensus forecast underutilizes private information contained in individual analyst forecasts. We predict that measures reflecting such private information have incremental explanatory power over the consensus forecast for the market's reaction to earnings news. We find results consistent with this prediction by examining two measures: (1) the percentage of individual forecasts met and (2) meeting the key analyst forecast. We extend the literature by documenting the role of individual analyst forecasts in investors' evaluations of reported earnings. JEL Classifications: G10; G11; G17; G14; G24. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from the sources identified in the paper.