IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v27y2015i1p83-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compliance costs and disclosure requirement mandates: Some evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Fogel, Kathy
  • El-Khatib, Rwan
  • Feng, Nancy Chun
  • Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara

Abstract

This note contributes to the discussion on the compliance costs of disclosure requirements for publicly traded companies. Prior research tends to focus on audit cost increases when disclosure requirements are stricter. We add some evidence from the point of views of shareholders. Particularly, we contrast stock market reaction to the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act which significantly enhanced public company disclosure requirements, with the 2012 Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act which alleviated disclosure requirements for small firms. Contrary to popular belief that more disclosure rules impose regulatory burdens on firms and are costly to implement, we find that the stock market reacted positively toward rules that require more disclosure; whereas it reacted negatively toward rules that require less disclosure, even though those disclosure rules were initially designed to reduce the costs of compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Fogel, Kathy & El-Khatib, Rwan & Feng, Nancy Chun & Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara, 2015. "Compliance costs and disclosure requirement mandates: Some evidence," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 83-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:1:p:83-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045715000119
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2015.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiang, Wei & Rupley, Kathleen Hertz & Wu, Jia, 2010. "Internal control deficiencies and the issuance of going concern opinions," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 40-46.
    2. Dee, Carol Callaway & Hillison, William & Pacini, Carl, 2010. "No news is bad news: Market reaction to reasons given for late filing of Form 10-K," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 121-127.
    3. Wallace, James S. & Krivogorsky, Victoria & Ferris, Kenneth R., 2009. "A perspective on regulatory paradigms: The case of IRS and Sarbanes-Oxley approaches to executive compensation-related regulation," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 111-117.
    4. Ahmed, Anwer S. & McAnally, Mary Lea & Rasmussen, Stephanie & Weaver, Connie D., 2010. "How costly is the Sarbanes Oxley Act? Evidence on the effects of the Act on corporate profitability," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 352-369, June.
    5. Marosi, András & Massoud, Nadia, 2007. "Why Do Firms Go Dark?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 421-442, June.
    6. Jain, Sakshi & Jain, Pankaj & Rezaee, Zabihollah, 2010. "Stock market reactions to regulatory investigations: Evidence from options backdating," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 52-57.
    7. Franzen, Laurel & Li, Xu & Vargus, Mark E., 2013. "The effect of Sarbanes-Oxley on the timely disclosure of restricted stock trading," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 47-52.
    8. Burton G. Malkiel, 2003. "The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 59-82, Winter.
    9. Burton G. Malkiel, 2003. "The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics," Working Papers 111, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    10. Burton G. Malkiel, 2003. "The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics," Working Papers 111, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    11. repec:pri:cepsud:91malkiel is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Haidan Li & Morton Pincus & Sonja Olhoft Rego, 2008. "Market Reaction to Events Surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Earnings Management," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(1), pages 111-134, February.
    13. Fuerman, Ross D., 2012. "Auditors and the post-2002 litigation environment," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 40-44.
    14. Webinger, Mariah & Comer, Matt & Bloom, Robert, 2013. "The effect of additional guidance on fair value measurement and disclosure in illiquid or inactive markets," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 220-229.
    15. Leuz, Christian & Triantis, Alexander & Yue Wang, Tracy, 2008. "Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 181-208, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dugan, Michael T. & Turner, Elizabeth H. & Thompson, Mark A. & Murray, Susan M., 2017. "Measuring the financial impact of environmental regulations on the trucking industry," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 152-158.
    2. Luo, Yan & Krivogorsky, Victoria, 2017. "The materiality of directors' and officers' insurance information: Case for disclosure," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 69-74.
    3. Bianca Raluca BADITOIU & Alexandru BUGLEA & Diana Corina GLIGOR-CIMPOIERU & Valentin Partenie MUNTEANU, 2020. "Csr Disclosure Of Financial European Companies Within Integrated Reports," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 924-938, November.
    4. Edmonds, Jennifer E. & Leece, Ryan D., 2017. "An investigation of the effectiveness of the division of corporate finance as a monitor of financial reporting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 44-51.
    5. Carla Martínez-Climent & Ana Zorio-Grima & Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, 2018. "Financial return crowdfunding: literature review and bibliometric analysis," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 527-553, September.
    6. Rupley, Kathleen Hertz & Brown, Darrell & Marshall, Scott, 2017. "Evolution of corporate reporting: From stand-alone corporate social responsibility reporting to integrated reporting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 172-176.
    7. DeBoskey, D.G. & Luo, Yan & Wang, Jeff J., 2018. "Do specialized board committees impact the transparency of corporate political disclosure? Evidence from S&P 500 companies," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 8-19.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rashid Zaman & Stephen Bahadar & Haroon Mahmood, 2021. "Corporate irresponsibility and stock price crash risk," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 786-820, September.
    2. David M. Ritzwoller & Joseph P. Romano, 2019. "Uncertainty in the Hot Hand Fallacy: Detecting Streaky Alternatives to Random Bernoulli Sequences," Papers 1908.01406, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    3. Chia-Lin Chang & Jukka Ilomäki & Hannu Laurila & Michael McAleer, 2018. "Long Run Returns Predictability and Volatility with Moving Averages," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Bell, Peter N, 2013. "New Testing Procedures to Assess Market Efficiency with Trading Rules," MPRA Paper 46701, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Jitka Veselá & Alžběta Zíková, 2022. "Are the Czech, Polish, German and Dutch markets taking a random walk? [Konají český, polský, německý a nizozemský trh náhodnou procházku?]," Český finanční a účetní časopis, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2022(2), pages 19-38.
    6. Muchnik, Lev & Bunde, Armin & Havlin, Shlomo, 2009. "Long term memory in extreme returns of financial time series," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(19), pages 4145-4150.
    7. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    8. Ishani Chaudhuri & Parthajit Kayal, 2022. "Predicting Power of Ticker Search Volume in Indian Stock Market," Working Papers 2022-214, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    9. Ghada A. Altarawneh & Ahmad B. Hassanat & Ahmad S. Tarawneh & Ahmad Abadleh & Malek Alrashidi & Mansoor Alghamdi, 2022. "Stock Price Forecasting for Jordan Insurance Companies Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic Utilizing Off-the-Shelf Technical Analysis Methods," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    10. John Sabelhaus, 2005. "Alternative Methods for Projecting Equity Returns: Implications for Evaluating Social Security Reform Proposals," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 8(1), pages 43-63, March.
    11. Cristi Spulbar & Ramona Birau & Lucian Florin Spulbar, 2021. "A Critical Survey on Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), Adaptive Market Hypothesis (AMH) and Fractal Markets Hypothesis (FMH) Considering Their Implication on Stock Markets Behavior," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 1161-1165, December.
    12. Stephen Bell & John Quiggin, 2006. "Asset Price Instability and Policy Responses: The Legacy of Liberalization," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 629-649, September.
    13. Paolo Cremonesi & Chiara Francalanci & Alessandro Poli & Roberto Pagano & Luca Mazzoni & Alberto Maggioni & Mehdi Elahi, 2018. "Social Network based Short-Term Stock Trading System," Papers 1801.05295, arXiv.org.
    14. Park, Cheol-Ho & Irwin, Scott H., 2004. "The Profitability Of Technical Trading Rules In Us Futures Markets: A Data Snooping Free Test," 2004 Conference, April 19-20, 2004, St. Louis, Missouri 19011, NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    15. Taufiq Choudhry & Ranadeva Jayasekera, 2015. "Level of efficiency in the UK equity market: empirical study of the effects of the global financial crisis," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 213-242, February.
    16. Li, Xi, 2014. "The Sarbanes–Oxley act and cross-listed foreign private issuers," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 21-40.
    17. Mahata, Ajit & Rai, Anish & Nurujjaman, Md. & Prakash, Om, 2021. "Modeling and analysis of the effect of COVID-19 on the stock price: V and L-shape recovery," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 574(C).
    18. Saggese, Pietro & Belmonte, Alessandro & Dimitri, Nicola & Facchini, Angelo & Böhme, Rainer, 2023. "Arbitrageurs in the Bitcoin ecosystem: Evidence from user-level trading patterns in the Mt. Gox exchange platform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 251-270.
    19. Abootaleb Shirvani & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2019. "A Rational Finance Explanation of the Stock Predictability Puzzle," Papers 1911.02194, arXiv.org.
    20. Admin Starcevic & Timothy Rodgers, 2011. "Market Efficiency within the German Stock Market: A Comparative Study of the Relative Efficiencies of the DAX, MDAX, SDAX and ASE Indices," International Econometric Review (IER), Econometric Research Association, vol. 3(1), pages 25-37, April.

    Corrections

    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:eee:reacre:v:27:y:2015:i:1:p:83-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.