No abstract

We introduce a firm-specific measure of the technological aspect of competition—technological peer pressure—and examine firm-initiated product development-related press releases. We argue that empirical examinations of the theorized negative relation between competition and disclosure require the type of voluntary disclosure to be relevant to the dimension of competition under examination to ensure that firms incur significant proprietary costs of disclosure. In other words, many types of disclosure do not provide actionable information to competitors and, thus, should not be affected by that dimension of competition. We expect a negative relation between technological peer pressure and product disclosure because the latter reveals firms' strategies, allocations, and progress of technological investments in product development to competitors. In contrast, we do not expect a negative relation between technological peer pressure and management earnings forecasts—the most common type of voluntary disclosure used in accounting research. Our test results are consistent with these expectations. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources. Our TPP Measure is available for download, please see the link in Appendix G.

This study examines the information content of firms’ operations-related disclosures (ORDs) and the importance of these disclosures as an information source to stock markets relative to other commonly examined sources of information. I find that ORDs constitute a large portion of corporate press releases. These disclosures are associated with significant stock price reactions and trading volume. The stock price reactions to ORDs are greater than the reactions to 10-K/Q reports and are of similar magnitudes to the reactions to 8-K filings. On average, ORDs explain variation in firms’ quarterly returns to a similar degree as management earnings forecasts and 10-K/Q reports for the full sample and to a greater degree for small firms and firms with lower earnings quality.

We propose financial statement similarity as a measure of financial reporting comparability. The firm‐pair version of our measure reflects the degree to which two firms report similar relations within their financial statement items; this version can help managers and market participants identify peer firms. The firm‐year version of our measure reflects the degree to which a firm reports financial statement relations that are similar to other members of its industry; this version can help market participants, regulators, and auditors screen firms for further attention. Our measure uses the presence and amounts of almost all financial items reported by a firm. We validate our measure in four sets of analyses to establish concurrent validity and in three sets of analyses to establish predictive validity. In all these tests, we contrast our measure with the comparability measure in De Franco et al. (2011) and a multivariate measure that considers the presence, but not amounts, of financial statement items. Our measure outperforms the alternatives and can be a useful tool for users.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

No abstract