ABSTRACT Previous research uses negative word counts to measure the tone of a text. We show that word lists developed for other disciplines misclassify common words in financial text. In a large sample of 10‐Ks during 1994 to 2008, almost three‐fourths of the words identified as negative by the widely used Harvard Dictionary are words typically not considered negative in financial contexts. We develop an alternative negative word list, along with five other word lists, that better reflect tone in financial text. We link the word lists to 10‐K filing returns, trading volume, return volatility, fraud, material weakness, and unexpected earnings.

Abstract In business research, firm size is both ubiquitous and readily measured. Complexity, another firm-related construct, is also relevant, but difficult to measure and not well-defined. As a result, complexity is less frequently incorporated in empirical designs. We argue that most extant measures of complexity are one-dimensional, have limited availability, and/or are frequently misspecified. Using both machine learning and an application-specific lexicon, we develop a text solution that uses widely available data and provides an omnibus measure of complexity. Our proposed measure, used in tandem with 10-K file size, provides a useful proxy that dominates traditional measures.

We create a lexicon of 45 capital budgeting terms and document manager language usage in earnings conference calls during 2010-2020. A sharp contrast between prior survey evidence and capital budgeting terms actually spoken by managers during conference calls is reported. Although surveys suggest that many managers use sensitivity analysis and real options for capital budgeting decisions, these terms almost never occur in any conference calls. Managers of large firms generating more positive financial performance tend to talk more about capital budgeting in earnings calls. Finally, we find that companies that mention payback rather than net present value are smaller in size, have less R&D expenses, and are younger in age.

The 1964 Securities Acts Amendments extended disclosures mandated of NYSE firms to most firms trading in the Over-the-Counter (OTC) market. Although some prior evidence suggests substantial value increases for OTC firms due to the “value enhancing” mandated disclosures, we find no statistical difference in announcement returns for OTC firms moving to the NYSE before and after the legislation. One purported advantage to investors from the 1964 legislation was increased financial reporting. Yet, we document that the bulk of OTC firms analyzed in prior studies was already providing investors financial information before the legislation. Apparently, investors did not value the mandated disclosures. We do find evidence that the NYSE benefited from the legislation by increasing the number of OTC firms switching to their exchange around its passage.