监管公平披露是否创造了公平的竞争环境?来自收益公告对交易量变化和股价反应分析的证据

Anwer S. Ahmed, Richard A. Schneible Jr.
{"title":"监管公平披露是否创造了公平的竞争环境?来自收益公告对交易量变化和股价反应分析的证据","authors":"Anwer S. Ahmed, Richard A. Schneible Jr.","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.498002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We contribute to the literature on Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) in three ways. First, we provide evidence on whether FD has achieved its intended effect of leveling the information playing field by examining whether differences across investors' information quality prior to earnings announcements have declined after the pronouncement of the regulation. We find strong evidence of a decline in earnings announcement period trading volume attributable to differential prior precision after FD consistent with a more level playing field. Second, we re-examine whether FD has resulted in firms reducing or chilling their information flows (disclosures) to investors. Contrary to prior work, we find that there is evidence of an overall reduction or chill in information flows after FD relative to a \"cleaner\" pre-FD period than the pre-FD period used in other studies. Third, we document that while the leveling effect of FD is relatively wide-spread, the chill effect is driven by (i) relatively smaller, high technology firms and (ii) relatively larger firms with high book-to-market ratios. We interpret the latter result as evidence that firms with relatively high costs of public disclosure chose to eliminate the disclosure altogether rather than broadening access to the disclosure.","PeriodicalId":431402,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","volume":"182 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did Regulation Fair Disclosure Level the Playing Field? Evidence from an Analysis of Changes in Trading Volume and Stock Price Reactions to Earnings Announcements\",\"authors\":\"Anwer S. Ahmed, Richard A. Schneible Jr.\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.498002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We contribute to the literature on Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) in three ways. First, we provide evidence on whether FD has achieved its intended effect of leveling the information playing field by examining whether differences across investors' information quality prior to earnings announcements have declined after the pronouncement of the regulation. We find strong evidence of a decline in earnings announcement period trading volume attributable to differential prior precision after FD consistent with a more level playing field. Second, we re-examine whether FD has resulted in firms reducing or chilling their information flows (disclosures) to investors. Contrary to prior work, we find that there is evidence of an overall reduction or chill in information flows after FD relative to a \\\"cleaner\\\" pre-FD period than the pre-FD period used in other studies. Third, we document that while the leveling effect of FD is relatively wide-spread, the chill effect is driven by (i) relatively smaller, high technology firms and (ii) relatively larger firms with high book-to-market ratios. We interpret the latter result as evidence that firms with relatively high costs of public disclosure chose to eliminate the disclosure altogether rather than broadening access to the disclosure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431402,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"182 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.498002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.498002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

我们以三种方式为监管公平披露(FD)的文献做出贡献。首先,我们提供了证据,证明FD是否达到了其预期的信息公平竞争环境的效果,通过检查投资者在收益公告之前的信息质量差异是否在该法规发布后有所下降。我们发现强有力的证据表明,在FD之后,与更公平的竞争环境相一致的差异先验精度导致收益公告期交易量下降。其次,我们重新审视FD是否导致公司减少或冷却其向投资者的信息流(披露)。与之前的工作相反,我们发现有证据表明,相对于其他研究中使用的“更干净”的FD前时期,FD后的信息流总体上减少或冷却。第三,我们证明,虽然FD的均衡效应相对广泛,但冷却效应是由(i)相对较小的高技术公司和(ii)相对较大的高账面市值比公司驱动的。我们将后一种结果解释为公开披露成本相对较高的公司选择完全取消披露而不是扩大披露的获取途径的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Did Regulation Fair Disclosure Level the Playing Field? Evidence from an Analysis of Changes in Trading Volume and Stock Price Reactions to Earnings Announcements
We contribute to the literature on Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) in three ways. First, we provide evidence on whether FD has achieved its intended effect of leveling the information playing field by examining whether differences across investors' information quality prior to earnings announcements have declined after the pronouncement of the regulation. We find strong evidence of a decline in earnings announcement period trading volume attributable to differential prior precision after FD consistent with a more level playing field. Second, we re-examine whether FD has resulted in firms reducing or chilling their information flows (disclosures) to investors. Contrary to prior work, we find that there is evidence of an overall reduction or chill in information flows after FD relative to a "cleaner" pre-FD period than the pre-FD period used in other studies. Third, we document that while the leveling effect of FD is relatively wide-spread, the chill effect is driven by (i) relatively smaller, high technology firms and (ii) relatively larger firms with high book-to-market ratios. We interpret the latter result as evidence that firms with relatively high costs of public disclosure chose to eliminate the disclosure altogether rather than broadening access to the disclosure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Raiders, Activists, and the Risk of Mistargeting The Economics of Securities Regulation: A Survey Autonomous Vehicles, Moral Hazards & the "AV Problem" Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters The '7% Solution' and IPO (Under)Pricing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1