IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/iaecre/v28y2022i3d10.1007_s11294-022-09856-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking Information Seriously: A Firm-side Interpretation of Risk Factor Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • M. J. Histen

    (California State University Northridge)

Abstract

Information plays a key role in how markets assess a firm’s value. Disclosure is expensive to comply with and to interpret. Narrative information about risks is particularly challenging to evaluate. Though results on the informativeness of narrative risk disclosure are mixed, previous research focuses on the value to investors. However, risk disclosure does more than provide transparency to investors. It also affects firm behavior through an elevated assessment and increased preparation in response to risk. This study takes this active view of risk disclosure by analyzing firm-side effects through multifactor fixed effects regressions of approximately 13,000 firm-year observations from 2015–2018. The robust results show firm performance is correlated with topic models of narrative risk disclosures. These findings support the argument that risk disclosure corresponds to risk management. A firm disclosing cybersecurity risk responds better in the event of a data breach compared to one that has not, despite the firm itself sourcing the information. Overall, narrative risk disclosure both provides investors with useful information and strengthens a firm’s responsiveness. This provides empirical evidence to policymakers and market participants on the value of forward-looking statements even when the news is pessimistic.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:iaecre:v:28:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11294-022-09856-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11294-022-09856-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11294-022-09856-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11294-022-09856-5?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. Beyer, Anne & Cohen, Daniel A. & Lys, Thomas Z. & Walther, Beverly R., 2010. "The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 296-343, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Tim Loughran & Bill Mcdonald, 2016. "Textual Analysis in Accounting and Finance: A Survey," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 1187-1230, September.
    6. Anne Beatty & Lin Cheng & Haiwen Zhang, 2019. "Are Risk Factor Disclosures Still Relevant? Evidence from Market Reactions to Risk Factor Disclosures Before and After the Financial Crisis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 805-838, June.
    7. Ole-Kristian Hope & Danqi Hu & Hai Lu, 2016. "The benefits of specific risk-factor disclosures," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1005-1045, December.
    8. Mirko S. Heinle & Kevin C. Smith, 2017. "A theory of risk disclosure," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1459-1491, December.
    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. Pastwa, Anna M. & Shrestha, Prabal & Thewissen, James & Torsin, Wouter, 2021. "Unpacking the black box of ICO white papers: a topic modeling approach," LIDAM Discussion Papers LFIN 2021018, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    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. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    7. Nadine Gatzert & Dinah Heidinger, 2020. "An Empirical Analysis of Market Reactions to the First Solvency and Financial Condition Reports in the European Insurance Industry," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(2), pages 407-436, June.
    8. Li, Ken, 2022. "Textual fundamentals in earnings press releases," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    9. Richard Frankel & Jared Jennings & Joshua Lee, 2022. "Disclosure Sentiment: Machine Learning vs. Dictionary Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5514-5532, July.
    10. Thewissen, James & Shrestha, Prabal & Torsin, Wouter & Pastwa, Anna M., 2022. "Unpacking the black box of ICO white papers: A topic modeling approach," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Fengler, Matthias & Phan, Minh Tri, 2023. "A Topic Model for 10-K Management Disclosures," Economics Working Paper Series 2307, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    12. Allen H. Huang & Jianghua Shen & Amy Y. Zang, 2022. "The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 1319-1355, December.
    13. Alex Kim & Maximilian Muhn & Valeri Nikolaev, 2023. "Bloated Disclosures: Can ChatGPT Help Investors Process Information?," Papers 2306.10224, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    14. 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).
    15. 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).
    16. Huijue Kelly Duan & Hanxin Hu & Yangin (Ben) Yoon & Miklos Vasarhelyi, 2022. "Increasing the utility of performance audit reports: Using textual analytics tools to improve government reporting," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 201-218, October.
    17. Ott, Christian, 2020. "The risks of mergers and acquisitions—Analyzing the incentives for risk reporting in Item 1A of 10-K filings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 158-181.
    18. 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).
    19. Li, He & No, Won Gyun & Wang, Tawei, 2018. "SEC's cybersecurity disclosure guidance and disclosed cybersecurity risk factors," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 40-55.
    20. Wei, Lu & Jing, Haozhe & Huang, Jie & Deng, Yuqi & Jing, Zhongbo, 2023. "Do textual risk disclosures reveal corporate risk? Evidence from U.S. fintech corporations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 127(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:kap:iaecre:v:28:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11294-022-09856-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.