The joint effects of litigation risk and regulation on non-GAAP reporting

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Richard A. Cazier, Theodore E. Christensen, Kenneth J. Merkley, John S. Treu
{"title":"The joint effects of litigation risk and regulation on non-GAAP reporting","authors":"Richard A. Cazier,&nbsp;Theodore E. Christensen,&nbsp;Kenneth J. Merkley,&nbsp;John S. Treu","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We examine the joint effects of litigation risk and regulation in shaping firms’ financial reporting decisions. Specifically, we investigate how these disciplining mechanisms influence firms’ disclosure of non-GAAP earnings metrics, which have been at the forefront of the SEC's regulatory concerns in recent years. We employ a plausibly exogenous shock to litigation risk based on a US circuit court ruling to explore how litigation risk influences firms’ non-GAAP earnings disclosures. We find a robust <i>negative</i> relation between litigation risk and both the likelihood and aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting. However, we find a significant attenuation in the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk after the implementation of Regulation G (Reg G), despite evidence that aggressive non-GAAP reporting persists in the post-Reg G environment. Additional analyses indicate that this attenuation is actually the net result of two unique effects. First, we find that Reg G created a <i>de facto</i> “safe harbor” for non-GAAP reporting among firms in circuits with higher litigation risk and a “curtailment effect” among firms in the circuit with the lowest litigation risk. Overall, Reg G led to a convergence in non-GAAP reporting practices irrespective of firms’ circuit-specific litigation risk. We posit that this net attenuation of litigation risk's influence on non-GAAP reporting is likely an unintended consequence of Reg G.</p>","PeriodicalId":48106,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"51 3-4","pages":"783-818"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jbfa.12766","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbfa.12766","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examine the joint effects of litigation risk and regulation in shaping firms’ financial reporting decisions. Specifically, we investigate how these disciplining mechanisms influence firms’ disclosure of non-GAAP earnings metrics, which have been at the forefront of the SEC's regulatory concerns in recent years. We employ a plausibly exogenous shock to litigation risk based on a US circuit court ruling to explore how litigation risk influences firms’ non-GAAP earnings disclosures. We find a robust negative relation between litigation risk and both the likelihood and aggressiveness of non-GAAP reporting. However, we find a significant attenuation in the sensitivity of non-GAAP disclosure to litigation risk after the implementation of Regulation G (Reg G), despite evidence that aggressive non-GAAP reporting persists in the post-Reg G environment. Additional analyses indicate that this attenuation is actually the net result of two unique effects. First, we find that Reg G created a de facto “safe harbor” for non-GAAP reporting among firms in circuits with higher litigation risk and a “curtailment effect” among firms in the circuit with the lowest litigation risk. Overall, Reg G led to a convergence in non-GAAP reporting practices irrespective of firms’ circuit-specific litigation risk. We posit that this net attenuation of litigation risk's influence on non-GAAP reporting is likely an unintended consequence of Reg G.

Abstract Image

诉讼风险与监管对非公认会计准则报告的共同影响
我们研究了诉讼风险和监管在塑造公司财务报告决策中的联合效应。具体而言,我们研究了这些惩戒机制如何影响公司披露非公认会计准则收益指标,这是近年来美国证券交易委员会监管关注的最前沿。我们以美国巡回法院的裁决为基础,对诉讼风险进行了合理的外生冲击,以探讨诉讼风险如何影响公司的非公认会计准则收益披露。我们发现诉讼风险与非公认会计准则报告的可能性和侵略性之间存在强大的负相关关系。然而,我们发现在实施法规G (Reg)后,非gaap披露对诉讼风险的敏感性显著减弱,尽管有证据表明,在Reg后的环境中,积极的非gaap报告仍然存在。另外的分析表明,这种衰减实际上是两个独特效应的净结果。首先,我们发现,在诉讼风险较高的巡回公司中,Reg为非gaap报告创造了事实上的“安全港”,并在诉讼风险最低的巡回公司中产生了“削减效应”。总体而言,regg导致了非公认会计准则报告实践的趋同,而不考虑公司的电路特定诉讼风险。我们认为,诉讼风险对非公认会计准则报告影响的净衰减可能是regg的意外后果。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.20%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting exists to publish high quality research papers in accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. The interfaces are relevant in many areas such as financial reporting and communication, valuation, financial performance measurement and managerial reward and control structures. A feature of JBFA is that it recognises that informational problems are pervasive in financial markets and business organisations, and that accounting plays an important role in resolving such problems. JBFA welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Nonetheless, theoretical papers should yield novel testable implications, and empirical papers should be theoretically well-motivated. The Editors view accounting and finance as being closely related to economics and, as a consequence, papers submitted will often have theoretical motivations that are grounded in economics. JBFA, however, also seeks papers that complement economics-based theorising with theoretical developments originating in other social science disciplines or traditions. While many papers in JBFA use econometric or related empirical methods, the Editors also welcome contributions that use other empirical research methods. Although the scope of JBFA is broad, it is not a suitable outlet for highly abstract mathematical papers, or empirical papers with inadequate theoretical motivation. Also, papers that study asset pricing, or the operations of financial markets, should have direct implications for one or more of preparers, regulators, users of financial statements, and corporate financial decision makers, or at least should have implications for the development of future research relevant to such users.
×
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