Are Lengthy and Boilerplate Risk Factor Disclosures Inadequate? An Examination of Judicial and Regulatory Assessments of Risk Factor Language

Richard A. Cazier, Jeff L. McMullin, J. Treu
{"title":"Are Lengthy and Boilerplate Risk Factor Disclosures Inadequate? An Examination of Judicial and Regulatory Assessments of Risk Factor Language","authors":"Richard A. Cazier, Jeff L. McMullin, J. Treu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3167611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Although formal guidance instructs firms to avoid issuing lengthy and boilerplate risk factor disclosures, regulators and users of financial statements note these disclosures are excessively long and boilerplate. The persistence of these characteristics is surprising given that prior research finds that firms disclosing lengthy and boilerplate risk factors experience negative capital market consequences. We investigate two potential sources of firms' incentives to issue such disclosures by examining how judicial and regulatory assessments of firms' risk factor disclosures correlate with the disclosure length and boilerplate. Results suggest that lengthier and more boilerplate risk factor disclosures are less likely to be considered inadequate under judicial and regulatory review. Further analysis finds that when risk factor language is assessed as adequate in judicial review, industry peers borrow that language more frequently, and that judicial assessments of risk factor disclosures prompt industry peers to lengthen their risk factor disclosures.\n JEL Classifications: D8; G38; M4.","PeriodicalId":346640,"journal":{"name":"Securities; Financial Institutions","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Securities; Financial Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3167611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Although formal guidance instructs firms to avoid issuing lengthy and boilerplate risk factor disclosures, regulators and users of financial statements note these disclosures are excessively long and boilerplate. The persistence of these characteristics is surprising given that prior research finds that firms disclosing lengthy and boilerplate risk factors experience negative capital market consequences. We investigate two potential sources of firms' incentives to issue such disclosures by examining how judicial and regulatory assessments of firms' risk factor disclosures correlate with the disclosure length and boilerplate. Results suggest that lengthier and more boilerplate risk factor disclosures are less likely to be considered inadequate under judicial and regulatory review. Further analysis finds that when risk factor language is assessed as adequate in judicial review, industry peers borrow that language more frequently, and that judicial assessments of risk factor disclosures prompt industry peers to lengthen their risk factor disclosures. JEL Classifications: D8; G38; M4.
冗长和样板式的风险因素披露是否不足?风险因素语言的司法和监管评估
虽然正式的指导方针指示公司避免发布冗长和模式化的风险因素披露,但监管机构和财务报表使用者注意到,这些披露过于冗长和模式化。这些特征的持续存在令人惊讶,因为先前的研究发现,披露冗长和模板风险因素的公司会经历负面的资本市场后果。我们通过考察司法和监管机构对公司风险因素披露的评估与披露长度和样本之间的关系,研究了公司发布此类披露的动机的两个潜在来源。结果表明,在司法和监管审查下,更长时间和更多的模板式风险因素披露不太可能被认为是不充分的。进一步分析发现,当风险因素语言在司法审查中被评估为适当时,行业同行更频繁地借用该语言,并且对风险因素披露的司法评估促使行业同行延长其风险因素披露。JEL分类:D8;G38;M4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信