IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Insiders Comply with Disclosure Rules? Evidence from Canada, 1996-2011


  • Lindsay M. Tedds

    (School of Public Administration, University of Victoria)


The disclosure of information on the granting of stock options as part of senior managers’ compensation packages can be a cumbersome and patchy process in terms of both regulatory compliance and public accessibility. Closing the gaps to make the reporting and accessing of data less unwieldy and more timely, efficient and accurate, should be a priority for securities regulators Firms are required to disclose the issuing of stock options to their highestlevel executives in their annual information circulars. Slight additions made to the information provided in the circulars, such as stock option grant dates, would greatly improve corporate transparency. Insiders also need to be educated on their duty to file, as they bear a fair amount of the responsibility for the problems in the system. Insiders’ lack of awareness about compliance contributes to discrepancies between insider disclosure and company disclosure, and creates information gaps. Misfiling, failure to file, and late filing of data — which can be a chronic problem — further hamper the disclosure process. Add to this the issue of limited accessibility created by a frustrating lack of linkage between databases and a paucity of online searchability capacity. This paper’s research shows that compliance levels are quite high in regards to reporting of information in proxy circulars. However, 12 per cent of stock option awards are not made public outside of the circulars, with 10 per cent of awards to CEOs, nine per cent to CFOs and 15 per cent to VPs going unfiled. The incidence of unfiled reports also includes 22 per cent of insiders for whom stock options are the only award. Equally worrisome is the fact that 26 per cent of insiders have at least one option award that goes unreported and nearly eight per cent of insiders never file. Some 34 per cent of insider awards are filed with information that differs from the data reported in the firm’s information circular. Confusion and procedural ignorance about compliance on the part of insiders contribute to such discrepancies. The System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR), the continuous disclosure database that firms use, cries out for modernization. Not only does its archaic reporting system limit its accessibility, but it functions separately from the database insiders use, the System for Electronic Disclosure by Insiders (SEDI). Linking the two databases would streamline insider filing requirements, increase compliance with insider disclosure, and improve the audit and compliance function of the securities regulators. The financial penalties for non-compliance or irregularities should be an incentive for both insiders and issuers to educate themselves and ensure they are meticulous in producing error-free, timely data and in making those data public. Unfortunately, enforcement is inconsistent. Currently, penalties tend to be applied only if another serious regulatory breach accompanies the misfilings, late filings or chronic nonfilings. Canada’s disclosure system needs fixing and streamlining in order to achieve the highest level of transparency on executive compensation. Some of these fixes are simple, others may be costly, but if improvements are not made, the system’s integrity, along with shareholder and public confidence, risk being seriously compromised.

Suggested Citation

  • Lindsay M. Tedds, 2016. "Do Insiders Comply with Disclosure Rules? Evidence from Canada, 1996-2011," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(30), October.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:9:y:2016:i:30

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Chapman, Larry & McKenzie, Ken & Porter, Shawn & Tedds, Lindsay M., 2017. "Tax Policy Forum: Review of Tax Expenditures, Budget 2016," MPRA Paper 96926, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:9:y:2016:i:30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bev Dahlby). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.