In 2005, the SEC mandated that firms disclose risk factors to provide useful information about firm risk. An unintended effect of the mandate is that mandatory risk factor (RF) disclosure may constitute “meaningful cautionary language” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and may therefore provide legal protection for forward-looking statements (FLSs). Using both a difference-in-differences design and a two-stage least squares approach, we find that, following the mandate, firms that had not previously disclosed risk factors (late RF disclosers) became more willing to provide qualitative FLSs, particularly positive ones, than other firms. This finding is consistent with our prediction that, for late RF disclosers, the mandate reduces managers’ perceived litigation risk. We also find that these firms experience improvement in their information environment. A path analysis reveals that the mandate improves firms’ information environment not only directly but also indirectly by prompting more disclosure of positive FLSs, illustrating an unintended benefit of the 2005 RF mandate. Cross-sectional tests show that the RF mandate induces a larger increase in positive FLSs for firms whose managers perceive a higher level of benefit from safe harbor protection arising from meaningful cautionary statements.

Agency theory suggests that outside shareholders prefer higher dividend payouts in order to reduce the free cash flows of firms that are under the insiders’ control. Our study investigates the effects of mutual funds, typically the most important and influential type of outside shareholder, on firms’ dividend payouts in China during the period from 2003 to 2011. We find that mutual funds influence firms to pay higher cash dividends. The results are consistent with the predictions from exit theory. The effects are more pronounced in firms controlled by state and regional governments and in firms with relatively higher free cash flows. We also find evidence that the mutual funds’ effects are stronger when their investment horizon is longer and the ownership interest is larger. Other institutional investors, such as banks, insurance companies, and securities companies have a lower exit threat and do not have an influence on firms’ cash dividend payments or financial performances.