Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect on the cost of capital of increased disclosure that reduces information asymmetry among market participants.

This study uses the decision to regularly hold open (closed) conference calls pre‐Reg FD as a proxy for a commitment to the policy of public (selective) disclosure and a cross‐sectional research design to examine the associations between open/closed conference calls and three proxies for firms' cost of capital (i.e. bid‐ask spreads, share turnover, and implied costs of capital).

The results show that firms that commit to open calls exhibit lower relative bid‐ask spreads, lower implied costs of capital, and higher share turnover than firms that commit to closed calls.

The findings suggest that increased disclosure that “levels the playing field” for small investors benefits investors as a whole by improving firms' market liquidity and reducing the cost of capital.

This study contributes to existing literature on the association between corporate disclosure and firms' cost of capital.

This study investigates the impact of the enhanced continuous disclosure regime introduced in December 2002 on several measures of information risk in NZX‐listed stocks. We employ two microstructure models and an intraday data set to measure information risk in a sample of 71 stocks. Our empirical results show that the reforms enacted in December 2002 had no significant effect on either the level of information‐based trading or the adverse selection component of market spreads in our sample of NZX‐listed stocks.

This paper aims to examine the potential liability of companies and their board members arising from the use of digital technology and social media as communication and engagement tools with investors and shareholders.

The research relies on a qualitative study using legal analysis of corporate and capital market laws as well as the outcome of legal proceedings and regulatory actions to ascertain conduct that could expose companies and boards to liability risks.

Social media characteristics expose unwary directors and companies to potential liability for oppressive conduct, selective disclosure or misleading statements.

This paper informs boards and companies of the types of conduct that could expose companies and boards to liability when social media is relied on to communicate with shareholders and investors.

The paper contributes to the literature on social media, capital market and corporate communication by presenting the legal perspective concerning reliance on social media as shareholders’ engagement and corporate communication tool.

The chapter describes the research objectives and different steps of the systematic literature review of existing studies on greenwashing. Both academics and practitioners may find this literature review useful, as it identifies the key features of the greenwashing research in a wide range of disciplines (management, marketing, accounting, corporate communication, etc.). The systematic literature review sheds light on the greenwashing types (and research gaps) in which the phenomenon takes shape. Time horizon (1990–mid 2021), keywords selection for queries on academic search engines, data collection, filtering criteria, etc., are explained and discussed in detail before presenting the main results in terms of frequency of publications over years, leading outlets in greenwashing research, trending articles, levels of analysis, geographical affiliation of first authors, theoretical approaches and methods used in this field of research. The chapter concludes by summarising the main types of greenwashing and possible avenues of research.

This paper aims to explore how a Malaysian palm oil company responded to the pressure for change towards sustainability in their sustainability reporting of negative incidents and in actual sustainability practices.

The study used qualitative methodology through an interpretive case study of a palm company. The study gathered primary and secondary data via semi-structured interviews with key organisational members and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), informal conversations, focus groups, document/annual report content analyses and observations. Symbolic and substantive management was used as the theoretical lens to explain the findings.

After experiencing a series of negative events regarding their social and environmental performance, the case company responded by using selective disclosure and a symbolic/legitimising strategy to address the majority of recurring negative events. In actual practice, the company changed structurally but policy-implementation gaps remain despite these changes. Strategically, the company changed in terms of its expansion policy but remained unchanged in traceability issues. The increased awareness of sustainability in the company’s culture appeared to suffer in favour of profit and cost/efficiency considerations that remain prominent. Both substantive and symbolic changes were found in both reports and practice but were more inclined to be symbolic.

The study provides guidelines for companies changing towards sustainability in both practice and reporting, in their effort to contribute to sustainable development goals.

The study provides evidence of symbolic and substantive changes as complementing activities instead of a dichotomy, which was mostly assumed in previous literature and suggests companies adopt a combination of these depending on the severity of sustainability-related issues, level of scrutiny and cost/efficiency considerations.

With all of the noise surrounding the promulgation of Regulation FD, It will be the subject of many articles and much analysis. This piece gives a background view of the origins of the rule. It also goes into the specifics of the rule. Who is covered, as well as exploring its insider trading implications.

This paper seeks to describe and assess recent legal developments that affect the corporate attorney‐client privilege.

Discusses and analyzes the corporate attorney‐client privilege and work product doctrine and the role of such protections in US society; discusses how recent developments including policies of the US Department of Justice and the evolving role of corporate auditors have adversely affected these protections, and shows how some of these developments can be ameliorated so as to preserve the important principles underlying the corporate attorney‐client privilege.

The upsurge of investigations into alleged corporate criminality has reignited the debate over the value of the privilege and the ability to have confidential communications between corporations and clients. Although judicial decisions do not favor adoption of a “selective waiver” doctrine, concerns have also been raised that legislative adoption of a selective waiver in this current culture‐of‐waiver environment may practically prevent companies from ever being able to assert a privilege again in governmental investigations.

A useful update on developments affecting the attorney‐client privilege and work product doctrine from a lawyer who specializes in securities litigation and governmental enforcement and is a member of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on the Attorney Client Privilege as well as Liaison from the Corporate Counsel Consortium to the American Bar Association Task Force on the Attorney Client Privilege.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the impact of voluntary disclosure on information asymmetry between investors and the average information content of subsequent the earnings announcement.

The authors use empirical methodology relying on multiple regression analyses. The authors estimate models of trading volume and stock returns around the earnings’ release date as a function of voluntary disclosures, measured using information in the 8-K statements.

Voluntary disclosures prior to the earnings release date increase trading volume related to stock returns. In addition, voluntary disclosures also reduce stock price movement around that date.

The results indicate that voluntary disclosures increase trading volume related to stock returns around the earnings release date. Such increases indicate increased differential precision among investors, demonstrating that voluntary disclosures increase differences in opinion among investors. The reduced stock price movement around the earnings release date also show that voluntary disclosures reduce the information content of earnings. One limitation is that the measure of voluntary disclosures does not consider the variation in the information content of individual disclosures.

Firms who make voluntary disclosures will need to carefully consider how to structure such releases to minimize asymmetry between investors. Investors should pay greater attention to finding out, and interpreting, voluntary disclosures by firms.

Regulators have previously expressed concern about leveling the playing field between more and less informed investors. The results showing increased differences in information as a result of voluntary disclosures provide valuable insights as regulators debate the balance of mandated and voluntary disclosure.

This is the first study to investigate the effect of voluntary disclosures on information asymmetry among investors using trading volume and, consequently, the first to find increased differences among investors that result from those voluntary disclosures. The paper is also the first to use a direct measure of voluntary disclosure developed by Cooper et al. to demonstrate the negative relation between voluntary disclosure and the average informativeness of earnings announcements.

The lexicon of corporate governance has ‘transparency’ as a key imperative. Yet transparency as a management principle begs explanation. It also raises several questions: transparent to whom, how and why? Who decides? Is full transparency desirable? What are its merits and benefits? What are the risks of increased transparency? The answers may lie somewhere between the shareholder and stakeholder views of the modern corporation, with the former defending shareholder-owner primacy and firm profit-maximisation, and the latter offering a values-based approach towards balancing the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. While corporate governance broadly addresses the needs of shareholders and investors, driven by the position that companies need to be better governed for stockholder value, the ‘stakeholder’ view of the corporation has gained ground over the past 20 or so years whereby the modern corporation is accountable not only to its owners, but also society.The transparency debate has emerged in parallel, and with it, issues of privacy and/or secrecy on one hand and the notion of ‘sunlight’ on the other. Transparency’s role has been variously described as the promotion of corporate disclosure and protection of the rights of minority shareholders in the information environment (Bushman & Smith, 2003); the promotion of corporate accountability and advancement of the rights of stakeholders (Clarke, 2004; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hess, 2007; Mallin, 2002); a tool to limit information asymmetries (Boatright, 2008; Florini, 2007a, 2007b; Hood, 2006; Lev, 1992); a means to create a level playing field through ethics and fairness (Boatright, 2008; Oliver, 2004); the promotion of market efficiency (Bessire, 2005; Heflin, Subramanyam, & Zhang, 2003); and the prevention of abuse through stakeholder activism (Bandsuch, Pate, & Thies, 2008; Roche, 2005). Aspirations aside, there is lack of consensus as to transparency's dimensions, drivers and dilemmas in corporate behaviour. Indeed, its perceived value to stakeholders and corporations alike remains questionable. In this chapter, the author discusses the governance of corporate transparency and argues that clarity and Board policy are needed to manage transparency activism and its resultant risks.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize and analyze SEC guidance to companies and issuers of securities on the use of company web sites to disclose information to investors, as published in an interpretive release, Release 34‐58288, Commission Guidance on the Use of Company Web Sites.

The Release provides guidance to public companies posting information on their web sites, including: when information posted on their web site is considered “public” for purposes of the “fair disclosure” requirements of Regulation FD; the application of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws to information posted on company web sites; the types of controls and procedures advisable with respect to posting information; and the appropriate format of the information presented on the web site.

While the Release sanctions web site‐only disclosures in some cases, companies should continue to file particularly important or time‐sensitive information with the SEC and also issue a press release. To avoid liability for “republishing” historical information, companies should organize their web sites so that previously posted statements and materials are separately located and identified. Companies should make the context of hyperlinked information clear; a company will not be shielded from antifraud liability for hyperlinking information it knows, or is reckless in not knowing, to be materially false or misleading. To avoid liability, companies should clearly identify summary information as such and alert readers to the location of more detailed disclosure. If a company chooses to post certain information such as non‐GAAP financial measures, committee charters, and amendments to codes of ethics on its web site in lieu of filing it with the SEC, that information should be subject to the same disclosure controls and procedures that apply to information filed with the SEC. Acknowledging that information on company web sites is becoming increasingly interactive and not static, the SEC will not require information appearing on company web sites to satisfy printer‐friendly standards unless already specifically required by SEC rules.

In view of the principles suggested in the SEC's guidance, each issuer should carefully review its disclosure policy and web site.

The paper offers practical guidance by experienced securities lawyers