Regulators and practitioners have concerns that the lack of standardization in non‐GAAP disclosure can make it challenging for users to process non‐GAAP earnings and use it in decision‐making. We examine whether auditor style extends beyond mandatory disclosures to induce similarity in non‐GAAP earnings disclosures. Specifically, we find that clients audited by the same auditor are more likely to disclose non‐GAAP earnings in a similar manner. We assess disclosure similarity using (1) the decision to disclose non‐GAAP earnings, (2) the disclosure prominence of non‐GAAP earnings in the earnings press release, (3) the discussion of non‐GAAP earnings in the management discussion and analysis of the annual report, (4) the choice to exclude recurring items, and (5) the receipt of SEC comment letters related to non‐GAAP earnings. We find that the association between auditor style and non‐GAAP disclosure is determined by Big 4 accounting firms and clients audited by the same audit office. The results are stronger for larger audit offices and smaller clients. We provide evidence that auditors facilitate non‐GAAP disclosure, which can improve compliance with SEC requirements and increase the standardization of non‐GAAP earnings disclosures. Our results are relevant to current policy discussions regarding auditor involvement in unaudited non‐GAAP earnings reporting.

We study firms’ decisions to provide non-GAAP income statements and the information environment consequences of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) comment letters directing them to stop disclosing such statements. We find firms voluntarily disclose non-GAAP income statements when firm and disclosure complexity, analyst following, and institutional ownership are higher. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find that, after firms stop disclosing full non-GAAP income statements at the direction of the SEC, the informativeness of non-GAAP earnings and overall earnings announcements decreases, information asymmetry increases, and analyst forecasts become less accurate and more disperse. We also find that firms not receiving a comment letter are more likely to stop providing non-GAAP income statements after an industry peer receives a non-GAAP income statement comment letter. Overall, our evidence suggests SEC comment letters about non-GAAP income statements appear to worsen the information environment for firms previously providing those statements. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

We examine the association between target firms' public non‐GAAP earnings disclosures and merger and acquisition (M&A) efficiency. This research question is important, given the widespread use of non‐GAAP metrics in M&A valuation and lack of evidence regarding the real effects of non‐GAAP disclosure. Public non‐GAAP disclosure can enhance bidders' ability to assess a target's core earnings and potential synergy, especially in the earlier stages of due diligence, and enable bidders to make better M&A decisions. We find that target firms' non‐GAAP disclosures are associated with greater M&A efficiency, greater synergies, and lower likelihood of post‐acquisition goodwill impairment. We also find some evidence that target firms' non‐GAAP disclosures are positively related to post‐acquisition operating performance. Further, we find modest evidence that the positive relation between non‐GAAP disclosures and M&A efficiency is stronger (1) for targets that are more difficult to value, (2) for targets with weaker information environments, and (3) when targets' non‐GAAP numbers are of higher quality. Overall, our evidence suggests that non‐GAAP disclosures help facilitate efficient resource allocation in M&As and are associated with real effects on corporate investment. Our evidence is potentially relevant to regulators' concerns about the usefulness of non‐GAAP metrics.

We study environmental and social (E&S) disclosures in annual reports. Using the word embedding model to examine over 210,000 annual reports from 24,271 public firms in 30 international countries/regions between 2001 and 2020, we create an E&S dictionary that allows us to document trends in annual report E&S disclosure. Specifically, we find: (1) increases in length and boilerplate language and (2) decreases in specificity. Our results also suggest that E&S disclosure quality improves after the adoption of voluntary ESG reporting frameworks but deteriorates after disclosure mandates. Our findings provide systematic evidence on the evolution of E&S disclosure in annual reports over the past two decades and shed light on how voluntary and mandatory standards have shaped global E&S reporting practices.

We examine how managers’ incentives to minimize litigation risk interact with the unique features of environmental information to shape disclosure decisions. We rely on peer firms’ lawsuits to generate variation in environmental disclosure litigation risk, consistent with prior research and anecdotal evidence suggesting that firms perceive an increase in environmental disclosure litigation risk after a peer firm is sued for related disclosures. Although we provide mixed evidence around changes in total environmental disclosure in response to peer lawsuits, we offer robust evidence that firms provide more forward-looking (and less historical) environmental disclosures in their conference calls in response to peers’ environmental disclosure lawsuits. Our evidence is consistent with firms providing less verifiable disclosures to minimize the risk of being sued for misrepresenting their environmental information. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.