IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijfss/v6y2018i1p25-d134468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Inconsistent Effects of Plain English Disclosures on Nonprofessional Investors’ Risk Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Riley

    (College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, USA)

  • Eileen Taylor

    (Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine whether the readability of different types of corporate risk disclosures influences the risk judgments of nonprofessional investors. Our study contributes evidence to the Security and Exchange Commission’s ongoing initiative to improve corporate financial statement disclosures. Using 359 responses from an experimental survey of nonprofessional investors (NPIs), we find that readability, in conjunction with risk factor type, significantly influences investors’ judgments of probability and size of economic loss, cause for worry, and overall risk. NPIs judged the risk from an industry-related risk factor (competition) to be higher when written in plain English, but judged the risk of a company-specific risk factor (internal control weakness over financial reporting) to be higher when written in a less readable format (i.e., legalese). We found no significant differences in judgments between plain English and less readable language on a combined industry/company risk factor, information security. Results suggest that a move to plain English for all types of risk factors may have consequences that are not fully understood or expected. This area needs further research before regulators enact (or enforce) mandates for risk factors to be presented in plain English.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Riley & Eileen Taylor, 2018. "The Inconsistent Effects of Plain English Disclosures on Nonprofessional Investors’ Risk Judgments," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:25-:d:134468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/6/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/6/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Skinner, Dj, 1994. "Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad-News," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 38-60.
    2. Amy Hutton, 2004. "Beyond Financial Reporting An Integrated Approach to Disclosure," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 16(4), pages 8-16.
    3. Abraham, Santhosh & Shrives, Philip J., 2014. "Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reports," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 91-107.
    4. Kristina Rennekamp, 2012. "Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1319-1354, December.
    5. Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 1988. "Information displays and preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Hun‐Tong Tan & Elaine Ying Wang & Bo Zhou, 2014. "When the Use of Positive Language Backfires: The Joint Effect of Tone, Readability, and Investor Sophistication on Earnings Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 273-302, March.
    7. Libby, R & Fishburn, Pc, 1977. "Behavioral-Models Of Risk-Taking In Business Decisions - Survey And Evaluation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 272-292.
    8. Dyer, Travis & Lang, Mark & Stice-Lawrence, Lorien, 2017. "The evolution of 10-K textual disclosure: Evidence from Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 221-245.
    9. Abraham, Santhosh & Cox, Paul, 2007. "Analysing the determinants of narrative risk information in UK FTSE 100 annual reports," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 227-248.
    10. Philip M. Linsley & Michael J. Lawrence, 2007. "Risk reporting by the largest UK companies: readability and lack of obfuscation," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(4), pages 620-627, July.
    11. Li, Feng, 2008. "Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 221-247, August.
    12. Skinner, Douglas J., 1997. "Earnings disclosures and stockholder lawsuits," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 249-282, November.
    13. Yang Bao & Anindya Datta, 2014. "Simultaneously Discovering and Quantifying Risk Types from Textual Risk Disclosures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1371-1391, June.
    14. Chewning, Eugene Jr & Harrell, Adrian M., 1990. "The effect of information load on decision makers' cue utilization levels and decision quality in a financial distress decision task," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 527-542.
    15. Xiao Carol Cui, 2016. "Calisthenics with Words: The Effect of Readability and Investor Sophistication on Investors’ Performance Judgment," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, January.
    16. Lipe, M. G., 1998. "Individual investors' risk judgments and investment decisions: The impact of accounting and market data," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 625-640, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elsayed, Mohamed & Elshandidy, Tamer, 2021. "Internal control effectiveness, textual risk disclosure, and their usefulness: U.S. evidence," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Jaeschke, Reemda & Lopatta, Kerstin & Yi, Cheong, 2018. "Managers’ use of language in corrupt firms’ financial disclosures: Evidence from FCPA violators," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 170-192.
    3. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    4. Nerissa C. Brown & Richard M. Crowley & W. Brooke Elliott, 2020. "What Are You Saying? Using topic to Detect Financial Misreporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 237-291, March.
    5. Jia, Jing & Li, Zhongtian, 2022. "Risk management committees and readability of risk management disclosure," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    6. Elshandidy, Tamer & Shrives, Philip J., 2016. "Environmental Incentives for and Usefulness of Textual Risk Reporting: Evidence from Germany," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 464-486.
    7. Fahd Alduais & Nashat Ali Almasria & Abeer Samara & Ali Masadeh, 2022. "Conciseness, Financial Disclosure, and Market Reaction: A Textual Analysis of Annual Reports in Listed Chinese Companies," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Umar, Tarik, 2022. "Complexity aversion when SeekingAlpha," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    9. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.
    10. M. J. Histen, 2022. "Taking Information Seriously: A Firm-side Interpretation of Risk Factor Disclosure," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 28(3), pages 119-131, November.
    11. Berkin, Anil & Aerts, Walter & Van Caneghem, Tom, 2023. "Feasibility analysis of machine learning for performance-related attributional statements," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    12. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    13. Ibrahim, Awad Elsayed Awad & Hussainey, Khaled & Nawaz, Tasawar & Ntim, Collins & Elamer, Ahmed, 2022. "A systematic literature review on risk disclosure research: State-of-the-art and future research agenda," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Rjiba, Hatem & Saadi, Samir & Boubaker, Sabri & Ding, Xiaoya (Sara), 2021. "Annual report readability and the cost of equity capital," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    15. Pier Luigi Marchini & Veronica Tibiletti & Alice Medioli & Gianluca Gabrielli, 2021. "Corporate Ownership Structure as a Determinant of “Risk Taking”: Insights from Italian Listed Companies," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(11), pages 138-138, July.
    16. Claudine Mangen & Alexia Paduano & Bianca Paduano & Jessica Hadzurik & Juliano Leggio & Kayla Russo, 2020. "Smoke and Mirrors? Disclosures in the Marijuana Industry in Canada," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 149-179, September.
    17. Moumen, Néjia & Ben Othman, Hakim & Hussainey, Khaled, 2015. "The value relevance of risk disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from MENA emerging markets," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 177-204.
    18. Johan Maharjan & Seung Won Lee, 2022. "Short‐selling pressure and year‐over‐year MD&A modifications," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3513-3562, September.
    19. Hassanein, Ahmed, 2022. "Risk reporting and stock return in the UK: Does market competition Matter?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Khandelwal, Chandni & Kumar, Satish & Madhavan, Vinodh & Pandey, Nitesh, 2020. "Do board characteristics impact corporate risk disclosures? The Indian experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 103-111.

    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:gam:jijfss:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:25-:d:134468. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.