诉讼风险与非公认会计准则报告的监管

Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, J. Treu
{"title":"诉讼风险与非公认会计准则报告的监管","authors":"Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, J. Treu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2928260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The SEC has recently raised renewed concerns about firms’ reporting of adjusted (non-GAAP) earnings metrics. Regulators have significant interest in understanding the factors that help constrain non-GAAP reporting. We first provide evidence on the relation between securities litigation risk and firms’ propensity to report non-GAAP earnings. We then provide evidence on how this relation is moderated by the regulation of non-GAAP disclosure under Reg G. Using a plausibly exogenous litigation shock based on a U.S. circuit court ruling, we find a robust negative relation between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting prior to the passage of Reg G. This negative relation suggests that, in the absence of rules-based regulation of non-GAAP reporting, litigation risk helps to constrain non-GAAP disclosure. However, our evidence suggests that the subsequent regulation of non-GAAP disclosure has decreased the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk. Specifically, we find that differences in non-GAAP reporting across judicial circuits are diminished and the negative association between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting is significantly attenuated following the implementation of Reg G. Our results are consistent with claims that Reg G has had the unintended consequence of shielding firms’ non-GAAP disclosures from litigation risk by creating a de facto “safe harbor” for non-GAAP disclosure. Finally, we use our quasi-natural-experimental setting to validate a new proxy for circuit-specific litigation risk that future researchers can employ in any setting.","PeriodicalId":181062,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Disclosure","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Litigation Risk and the Regulation of Non-GAAP Reporting\",\"authors\":\"Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, J. Treu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2928260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The SEC has recently raised renewed concerns about firms’ reporting of adjusted (non-GAAP) earnings metrics. Regulators have significant interest in understanding the factors that help constrain non-GAAP reporting. We first provide evidence on the relation between securities litigation risk and firms’ propensity to report non-GAAP earnings. We then provide evidence on how this relation is moderated by the regulation of non-GAAP disclosure under Reg G. Using a plausibly exogenous litigation shock based on a U.S. circuit court ruling, we find a robust negative relation between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting prior to the passage of Reg G. This negative relation suggests that, in the absence of rules-based regulation of non-GAAP reporting, litigation risk helps to constrain non-GAAP disclosure. However, our evidence suggests that the subsequent regulation of non-GAAP disclosure has decreased the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk. Specifically, we find that differences in non-GAAP reporting across judicial circuits are diminished and the negative association between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting is significantly attenuated following the implementation of Reg G. Our results are consistent with claims that Reg G has had the unintended consequence of shielding firms’ non-GAAP disclosures from litigation risk by creating a de facto “safe harbor” for non-GAAP disclosure. Finally, we use our quasi-natural-experimental setting to validate a new proxy for circuit-specific litigation risk that future researchers can employ in any setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":181062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance: Disclosure\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance: Disclosure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2928260\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Disclosure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2928260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

美国证券交易委员会最近再次对公司报告调整后(非公认会计准则)收益指标表示担忧。监管机构对了解有助于限制非公认会计准则报告的因素非常感兴趣。我们首先提供了证券诉讼风险与公司报告非公认会计准则收益倾向之间关系的证据。然后,我们提供证据,证明Reg下的非gaap披露监管如何调节这种关系。使用基于美国巡回法院裁决的看似外生的诉讼冲击,我们发现在Reg通过之前,诉讼风险与非gaap报告之间存在强大的负相关关系。这种负相关关系表明,在缺乏基于规则的非gaap报告监管的情况下,诉讼风险有助于约束非gaap披露。然而,我们的证据表明,随后对非公认会计准则披露的监管降低了非公认会计准则披露对诉讼风险的敏感性。具体而言,我们发现不同司法管辖区的非gaap报告差异减少,诉讼风险与非gaap报告之间的负相关关系在实施Reg后显着减弱。我们的结果与Reg通过为非gaap披露创建事实上的“安全港”而产生了保护公司非gaap披露免受诉讼风险的意外后果的说法是一致的。最后,我们使用我们的准自然实验设置来验证电路特定诉讼风险的新代理,未来的研究人员可以在任何设置中使用。
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
Litigation Risk and the Regulation of Non-GAAP Reporting
The SEC has recently raised renewed concerns about firms’ reporting of adjusted (non-GAAP) earnings metrics. Regulators have significant interest in understanding the factors that help constrain non-GAAP reporting. We first provide evidence on the relation between securities litigation risk and firms’ propensity to report non-GAAP earnings. We then provide evidence on how this relation is moderated by the regulation of non-GAAP disclosure under Reg G. Using a plausibly exogenous litigation shock based on a U.S. circuit court ruling, we find a robust negative relation between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting prior to the passage of Reg G. This negative relation suggests that, in the absence of rules-based regulation of non-GAAP reporting, litigation risk helps to constrain non-GAAP disclosure. However, our evidence suggests that the subsequent regulation of non-GAAP disclosure has decreased the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk. Specifically, we find that differences in non-GAAP reporting across judicial circuits are diminished and the negative association between litigation risk and non-GAAP reporting is significantly attenuated following the implementation of Reg G. Our results are consistent with claims that Reg G has had the unintended consequence of shielding firms’ non-GAAP disclosures from litigation risk by creating a de facto “safe harbor” for non-GAAP disclosure. Finally, we use our quasi-natural-experimental setting to validate a new proxy for circuit-specific litigation risk that future researchers can employ in any setting.
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
Do Firms Redact Information from Material Contracts to Conceal Bad News? Forecasting Shares Outstanding How Important Are Semi-Annual Earnings Announcements? An Information Event Perspective Tone at the Bottom: Measuring Corporate Misconduct Risk from the Text of Employee Reviews Hiding in Plain Sight: The Global Implications of Manager Disclosure
×
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