Public firms that go private are no longer subject to SEC financial reporting requirements. This study examines peer firms' disclosure responses following the lost information spillover from going‐private events. We first support the lost information transfer, finding evidence that analyst forecasts of peers' earnings are less accurate and more disperse and that peer liquidity is lower immediately following going‐private transactions. In response, industry peers increase disclosure quality in mandatory filings. Peers that enhance disclosure regain some of the lost informational benefits. The disclosure response is most evident in firms that rely more on intra‐industry information spillover, firms with lower competitive concerns, and firms with the greatest deteriorations in their information environments after going‐private activity. Our study examines an underexplored aspect of going‐private transactions—the loss of public disclosure—and finds that the lost information imposes a negative externality that prompts peers to increase self‐disclosure to regain informational benefits.

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.

We document the interrelationship of disclosure policy decisions among firms by providing evidence that the cessation of quarterly management forecast guidance by 656 firms (“stoppers”) during 2004–2009 is associated with a pursuant increase in quarterly forecasts by previously non-forecasting firms in the same industries (“free-riders”). Increased forecasting by free-riders is positively associated with the information loss in the industry (proxied by the number of stoppers in the industry, the strength of previously existing information transfer relations between stoppers and free-riders, and whether stoppers and free-riders are peer firms) and the importance of the information loss to the free-riders (proxied by analyst following and the existence of new share issues). Following the cessation event, free-riders' cost of capital decreases as a function of the extent to which free-riders immediately initiate quarterly forecasting. JEL Classifications: M41. Data Availability: Data are available from the sources indicated in the text.

The disclosure requirements of ASC 606 significantly expanded the volume and granularity of revenue information. However, because of the significant judgment associated with the standard, it is unclear whether the new disclosures increased the decision-usefulness of financial reports. To shed light on this question, we investigate the revenue disaggregation requirements of ASC 606. These requirements had significant disclosure consequences, illustrated by an over two-fold increase in the median number of revenue items in disaggregating firms’ reports. Consistent with enhanced decision-usefulness, we find higher (lower) analyst sales forecast accuracy (dispersion) for disaggregating firms. These benefits are primarily present when disaggregation is accompanied by detailed qualitative disclosures, when disaggregated revenues are comparable, and when the granularity of segment information is low. Our study contributes to research evaluating ASC 606 and offers valuable insights to standard-setters currently considering broader disaggregation of income statement items (Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 2022). Data Availability: Data are available from the sources identified in the paper.

Theory argues that career concerns (i.e., concerns about the impact of current performance on contemporaneous and future compensation) encourage managers to withhold bad news disclosure. However, empirical evidence regarding the extent to which a manager's career concerns are associated with a delay in bad news disclosure is limited. Across multiple proxies for career concerns, we find that the extent to which managers delay bad news is positively associated with their level of career concerns. Then, we hand-collect data on a compensation contract that firms use to reduce CEOs' career concerns (i.e., ex ante severance pay agreements). We find that if managers receive a sufficiently large payment in the event of dismissal, they no longer delay the disclosure of bad news. Overall, our findings support prior theoretical evidence that managers delay bad news disclosure due to career concerns and suggest a mechanism through which firms can mitigate the delay. JEL Classifications: M12; M41. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.