IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/3377.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Often Do Managers Withhold Information?

Author

Listed:
  • Marinovic, Ivan

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

We estimate and test a model of voluntary disclosure in which a manager's information set is uncertain (Dye 1985; Jung and Kwon 1988). In this model, a manager makes his disclosure decision to maximize the market price, but sometimes, for exogenous reasons, he cannot or is not willing to disclose. We offer a flexible framework to measure the prevalence of unobservable disclosure frictions and the quality of managers' private information. More broadly, the method can be used to test for voluntary disclosure in datasets featuring an option to withhold. We also develop theory-based tests for detecting whether a firm is reporting strategically. At the firm level, we reject strategic reporting for between 1/3 to 2/3 of the sample of firms. Finally, estimating the model with quarterly management guidance, we document that firms face a disclosure friction between 30% to 46% of the time. Conditional on not facing a friction, firms strategically withhold between 4.3% to 20.7% of the time. To aid policymakers, these estimates predict that the level of voluntary forecasts will increase by 2.6% to 13.5% in a counter-factual world without strategic information withholding.

Suggested Citation

  • Marinovic, Ivan, 2015. "How Often Do Managers Withhold Information?," Research Papers 3377, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/407336
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    2. Ian D. Gow & David F. Larcker & Peter C. Reiss, 2016. "Causal Inference in Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 477-523, May.
    3. Matthew J. Bloomfield, 2021. "The Asymmetric Effect of Reporting Flexibility on Priced Risk," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 867-910, June.
    4. E. Cheynel & M. Liu-Watts, 2020. "A simple structural estimator of disclosure costs," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 201-245, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • G20 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - General

    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:ecl:stabus:3377. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.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.