IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-737768.html

Does Securities Regulation Matter? Mandatory Disclosure, Excess Stock Volatility, and the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Author

Listed:
  • Albert Bo Zhao
  • Sheng Li
  • Chenggang Xu

Abstract

We examine whether the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 significantly stabilized the market by introducing mandatory disclosure of information. We argue that mandatory information disclosure can curb stock manipulation by enhancing transparency, thereby reducing excess stock volatility. After a comprehensive assessment of the voluntary disclosure practices of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange before 1934, we find that those with poor disclosure practices experienced a significantly greater reduction in volatility after the implementation of the act compared with those with good disclosure practices. Further analysis reveals that the liquidity of these companies with poor disclosure practices also improved significantly more than that of companies with better disclosure, and the improvement in liquidity was linked to the decrease in their volatility. Given that one key purpose of the act’s legislators was to reduce excess market volatility, our findings provide empirical support for considering this legislative aim successful.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert Bo Zhao & Sheng Li & Chenggang Xu, 2026. "Does Securities Regulation Matter? Mandatory Disclosure, Excess Stock Volatility, and the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(2), pages 413-463.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/737768
    DOI: 10.1086/737768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/737768
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/737768
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/737768?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/737768. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.