IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i9p7054-7064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Not Ready for Prime Time: Financial Reporting Quality After SPAC Mergers

Author

Listed:
  • Jaewoo Kim

    (Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403)

  • Seyoung Park

    (Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403)

  • Kyle Peterson

    (Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403)

  • Ryan Wilson

    (Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242)

Abstract

We examine the financial reporting quality of special purpose acquisition corporations (SPACs) following a successful merger. We compare a sample of SPACs with completed mergers from 2006 to 2020 to initial public offering (IPO) firms in the same industry covering the same period. Compared with similar IPO firms, SPACs are more likely to restate their financial statements and have internal control weaknesses. We also find that SPACs are more likely to file untimely financial statements, amend previously issued filings, and have comment letters that go more rounds with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This lower reporting quality also results in less informative earnings to investors. Our evidence corroborates concerns from the media, accounting firms, and regulators that SPACs exhibit low financial reporting quality in comparison with IPOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaewoo Kim & Seyoung Park & Kyle Peterson & Ryan Wilson, 2022. "Not Ready for Prime Time: Financial Reporting Quality After SPAC Mergers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 7054-7064, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:9:p:7054-7064
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4478
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4478?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ewa Sletten & Yonca Ertimur & Jayanthi Sunder & Joseph Weber, 2018. "When and why do IPO firms manage earnings?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 872-906, September.
    2. Ying Cao & Linda A. Myers & Thomas C. Omer, 2012. "Does Company Reputation Matter for Financial Reporting Quality? Evidence from Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 956-990, September.
    3. Jones Heese & Mozaffar Khan & Karthik Ramanna, 2017. "Is the SEC Captured? Evidence from Comment-Letter Reviews," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-087, Harvard Business School.
    4. Floros, Ioannis V. & Sapp, Travis R.A., 2011. "Shell games: On the value of shell companies," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 850-867, September.
    5. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    6. Brad Badertscher & Bjorn Jorgensen & Sharon Katz & William Kinney, 2014. "Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 303-339, May.
    7. Brandon Gipper & Christian Leuz & Mark Maffett, 2020. "Public Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Audit Inspection Regime," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(10), pages 4532-4579.
    8. Tatiana Fedyk & Zvi Singer & Mark Soliman, 2017. "The sharpest tool in the shed: IPO financial statement management of STEM vs. non-STEM firms," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1541-1581, December.
    9. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    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. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Kaufhold, Ann-Katrin & Langenbucher, Katja & Blank, Patrick & Krahnen, Jan Pieter, 2021. "BaFin (in)dependence - a reform proposal," SAFE White Paper Series 82, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    4. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    5. Dimitrios Gounopoulos & Georgios Loukopoulos & Panagiotis Loukopoulos & Geoffrey Wood, 2024. "Corporate Political Activities and the SEC's Oversight Role in the IPO Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 375-412, March.
    6. Liwei Shan & Albert Tsang & Xiaoxue Zhang, 2024. "Transporting Audit Quality Across Countries: Returnee CEOs and Audit Fees," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(4), pages 845-874, July.
    7. Hills, Robert & Kubic, Matthew & Mayew, William J., 2021. "State sponsors of terrorism disclosure and SEC financial reporting oversight," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    8. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    9. Chantziaras, Antonios & Koulikidou, Kleopatra & Leventis, Stergios, 2021. "The power of words in capital markets: SEC comment letters on foreign issuers and the impact of home country enforcement," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    10. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    11. Iselin, Michael & Johnson, Bret & Ott, Jacob & Raleigh, Jacob, 2022. "Protecting wall street or main street: SEC monitoring and enforcement of retail-owned firms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117743, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Li, Minghui & Yang, Xin & Zhai, Kerui, 2024. "Signing auditors’ experience gap and audit quality," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Heese, Jonas & Krishnan, Ranjani & Ramasubramanian, Hari, 2021. "The Department of Justice as a gatekeeper in whistleblower-initiated corporate fraud enforcement: Drivers and consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    14. Alessandro Minichilli & Annalisa Prencipe & Suresh Radhakrishnan & Gianfranco Siciliano, 2022. "What’s in a Name? Eponymous Private Firms and Financial Reporting Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2330-2348, March.
    15. Yao, Youfu & Hong, Yun, 2023. "Can comment letters impact excess cash holdings? Evidence from China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 900-922.
    16. Wanyi Chen & Ning Hu & Xiangfang Zhao, 2022. "Information asymmetry, regulatory inquiry, and company mergers and acquisitions: evidence from Shenzhen Stock Exchange comment letters," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2497-2542, June.
    17. Jordan Schoenfeld, 2024. "Cyber risk and voluntary Service Organization Control (SOC) audits," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 580-620, March.
    18. Yikun Chen & Ning Hu & Yanan Cao & Savannah (Yuanyuan) Guo & Yuhan Wang, 2024. "The information effect versus governance effect of comment letters: Evidence from the cost of equity capital," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 714-742, December.
    19. Jonas Heese, 2022. "Does Industry Employment of Active Regulators Weaken Oversight?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9198-9218, December.
    20. Zhu, Xiuli & Li, Xiaohui & Zhou, Kexin & Yu, Yuying, 2023. "The impact of annual reports transparency and comment letters on the cost of debt: Evidence for China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:9:p:7054-7064. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.