Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Review of Accounting Studies 4/2018

27-09-2018

SEC monitoring of foreign firms’ disclosures in the presence of foreign regulators

Authors: James P. Naughton, Rafael Rogo, Jayanthi Sunder, Ray Zhang

Published in: Review of Accounting Studies | Issue 4/2018

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

SEC comment letters indicate that the SEC has reviewed the firm’s filings and identified a disclosure issue. Using the existence of an SEC comment letter as a proxy for SEC monitoring, we document a negative association between the level of SEC monitoring of foreign firms and the strength of those foreign firms’ home-country institutions, consistent with the idea that the SEC implicitly shares its regulatory duties with international securities regulators. We find that foreign cross-listed firms are subject to lower monitoring intensity than foreign firms listed only on US exchanges, but do not find a statistically significant difference in monitoring between foreign firms listed only on US exchanges and US firms. These findings suggest that it is the presence of another regulator that drives the intensity of SEC monitoring. We also find that US investor holdings are positively associated with the level of SEC oversight, suggesting that the SEC focuses its resources on firms that pose a greater risk to US investors. Collectively, our analyses show that two countervailing forces drive the SEC’s choice to monitor foreign firms. On the one hand, the SEC reduces monitoring intensity when it can rely on the public and private enforcement institutions in the foreign firm’s home country. On the other hand, the SEC provides increased monitoring of certain foreign firms when investors on US exchanges have greater investment exposure in those firms.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For example, the New York Stock Exchange had a total global market value of $26 trillion in 2006, which included 424 non-US issuers valued at $10 trillion. Source: http://​www.​nyse.​com/​press/​1190629848623.​html
 
2
If weaker standards are associated with lower levels of compliance, then weaker standards would be associated with a higher incidence of comment letters. However, if weaker standards simply imply reduced disclosure requirements, technical compliance rates for foreign issuers may be higher and there would be fewer SEC comment letters issued.
 
3
An example of this type of foreign private issuer is Alibaba, which is only listed on the NYSE.
 
4
Our conversations with SEC staff also revealed that the volume of comment letters closely tracks SEC review activity. In other words, when more resources are provided for reviews, more comment letters are produced.
 
5
Explicit agreements between regulators typically take the form of bilateral or multilateral memorandums of understanding. Unlike a treaty, a memorandum of understanding is simply a statement of intent (known as “soft law”) and is not enforceable under international law. These memoranda identify the scope, cost, permissible uses, and confidentiality obligations associated with information sharing.
 
7
We exclude comment letters on other filings such as prospectuses.
 
8
The percentage of reviews that produce a comment letter has declined in recent years, which may be due to a shift in the focus of the SEC to only issue comment letters in response to material issues. For example, see http://​www.​auditanalytics.​com/​blog/​comments-pending-companies-without-recent-comment-letters/​.
 
11
Eliminating the small number of comment letters for 6-K filings and focusing exclusively on 20-F comment letters does not influence our results or change any of our conclusions.
 
12
In untabulated results, we find that our conclusions are unchanged when we conduct our analyses using the foreign firm’s headquarters instead of the location of the primary non-US exchange, suggesting that there is little difference across the two approaches of identifying firms’ home country. The primary non-US exchange and the firm’s headquarters are located in the same country for approximately three-quarters of foreign firms in our sample.
 
14
The coefficient on Disclosure Requirements is −0.149 (t-statistic = −4.171). Therefore, we calculate the reduction in likelihood as (0.75–0.42) x − 0.149 = −0.0492.
 
Literature
go back to reference Bens, D. A., Cheng, M., & Neamtiu, M. (2016). The impact of SEC disclosure monitoring on the uncertainty of fair value estimates. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 349–375.CrossRef Bens, D. A., Cheng, M., & Neamtiu, M. (2016). The impact of SEC disclosure monitoring on the uncertainty of fair value estimates. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 349–375.CrossRef
go back to reference Cassell, C., Dreher, L., & Myers, L. (2013). Reviewing the SEC’s review process: 10-K comment letters and the cost of remediation. The Accounting Review, 88(6), 1875–1908.CrossRef Cassell, C., Dreher, L., & Myers, L. (2013). Reviewing the SEC’s review process: 10-K comment letters and the cost of remediation. The Accounting Review, 88(6), 1875–1908.CrossRef
go back to reference Christensen, H., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2016). Capital-market effects of securities regulation: prior conditions, implementation, and enforcement. Review of Financial Studies, 29, 2885–2924.CrossRef Christensen, H., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2016). Capital-market effects of securities regulation: prior conditions, implementation, and enforcement. Review of Financial Studies, 29, 2885–2924.CrossRef
go back to reference Cunningham, L., Johnson, B.A., Johnson, E.S., & Lisic, L.L. (2017). The switch up: An examination of changes in earnings management after receiving SEC comment letters. Working paper, University of Tennessee, George Mason University, and Virginia Polytechnic University. Cunningham, L., Johnson, B.A., Johnson, E.S., & Lisic, L.L. (2017). The switch up: An examination of changes in earnings management after receiving SEC comment letters. Working paper, University of Tennessee, George Mason University, and Virginia Polytechnic University.
go back to reference Dechow, P. M., Lawrence, A., & Ryans, J. (2016). SEC comment letters and insider sales. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 401–439.CrossRef Dechow, P. M., Lawrence, A., & Ryans, J. (2016). SEC comment letters and insider sales. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 401–439.CrossRef
go back to reference Doidge, C., Karolyi, G. A., & Stulz, R. (2004). Why are foreign firms listed in the US worth more? Journal of Financial Economics, 71, 205–238.CrossRef Doidge, C., Karolyi, G. A., & Stulz, R. (2004). Why are foreign firms listed in the US worth more? Journal of Financial Economics, 71, 205–238.CrossRef
go back to reference Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2006). International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? Journal of Accounting Research, 44(3), 485–531.CrossRef Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2006). International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? Journal of Accounting Research, 44(3), 485–531.CrossRef
go back to reference Heese, J., Khan, M., & Ramanna, K. (2017). Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1), 98–122.CrossRef Heese, J., Khan, M., & Ramanna, K. (2017). Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1), 98–122.CrossRef
go back to reference Iliev, P., Miller, D., & Roth, L. (2014). Uninvited US investors? Economic consequences of involuntary cross-listing. Journal of Accounting Research, 52, 473–519.CrossRef Iliev, P., Miller, D., & Roth, L. (2014). Uninvited US investors? Economic consequences of involuntary cross-listing. Journal of Accounting Research, 52, 473–519.CrossRef
go back to reference Jackson, H., & Roe, M. (2009). Public and private enforcement of securities laws: Resource-based evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 207–238.CrossRef Jackson, H., & Roe, M. (2009). Public and private enforcement of securities laws: Resource-based evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 207–238.CrossRef
go back to reference Johnston, R., & Petacchi, R. (2017). Regulatory monitoring of financial reporting: securities and exchange commission comment letters. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1128–1155.CrossRef Johnston, R., & Petacchi, R. (2017). Regulatory monitoring of financial reporting: securities and exchange commission comment letters. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1128–1155.CrossRef
go back to reference Kubick, T. R., Lynch, D. P., Mayberry, M. A., & Omer, T. C. (2016). The effects of regulatory scrutiny on tax avoidance: an examination of sec comment letters. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1751–1780.CrossRef Kubick, T. R., Lynch, D. P., Mayberry, M. A., & Omer, T. C. (2016). The effects of regulatory scrutiny on tax avoidance: an examination of sec comment letters. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1751–1780.CrossRef
go back to reference La Porta, R., López de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2006). What works in securities laws? Journal of Finance, 61, 1–32.CrossRef La Porta, R., López de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2006). What works in securities laws? Journal of Finance, 61, 1–32.CrossRef
go back to reference Lang, M., Raedy, J. S., & Wilson, W. (2006). Earnings management and cross listing: Are reconciled earnings comparable to US earnings? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1), 255–283.CrossRef Lang, M., Raedy, J. S., & Wilson, W. (2006). Earnings management and cross listing: Are reconciled earnings comparable to US earnings? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1), 255–283.CrossRef
go back to reference Piotroski, J. D., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Regulation and bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the flow of international listings. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 383–425.CrossRef Piotroski, J. D., & Srinivasan, S. (2008). Regulation and bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the flow of international listings. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 383–425.CrossRef
go back to reference Ryans, J. (2018). Textual classification of SEC comment letters. Working Paper, London Business School. Ryans, J. (2018). Textual classification of SEC comment letters. Working Paper, London Business School.
go back to reference Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2012a). Study on the cross-border scope of the private right of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of (p. 1934). Washington: D.C. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2012a). Study on the cross-border scope of the private right of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of (p. 1934). Washington: D.C.
go back to reference Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2012b). Study on the cross-border scope of the private right of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Washington, D.C. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2012b). Study on the cross-border scope of the private right of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Washington, D.C.
go back to reference Shnister, N. (2010). A free pass for foreign firms? An assessment of SEC and private enforcement against foreign issuers. Yale Law Journal, 119, 1638–1701. Shnister, N. (2010). A free pass for foreign firms? An assessment of SEC and private enforcement against foreign issuers. Yale Law Journal, 119, 1638–1701.
go back to reference Siegel, J. (2005). Can foreign firms bond themselves effectively by renting US securities laws? Journal of Financial Economics, 75(2), 319–359.CrossRef Siegel, J. (2005). Can foreign firms bond themselves effectively by renting US securities laws? Journal of Financial Economics, 75(2), 319–359.CrossRef
go back to reference Srinivasan, S., Wahid, A., & Yu, G. (2015). Admitting mistakes: Home country effect on the reliability of restatement reporting. The Accounting Review, 90(3), 1201–1240.CrossRef Srinivasan, S., Wahid, A., & Yu, G. (2015). Admitting mistakes: Home country effect on the reliability of restatement reporting. The Accounting Review, 90(3), 1201–1240.CrossRef
go back to reference Tafara, E., & Peterson, R. J. (2007). A blueprint for cross-border access to US investors: A new international framework. Harvard International Law Journal, 48(1), 31–68. Tafara, E., & Peterson, R. J. (2007). A blueprint for cross-border access to US investors: A new international framework. Harvard International Law Journal, 48(1), 31–68.
Metadata
Title
SEC monitoring of foreign firms’ disclosures in the presence of foreign regulators
Authors
James P. Naughton
Rafael Rogo
Jayanthi Sunder
Ray Zhang
Publication date
27-09-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Review of Accounting Studies / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1380-6653
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7136
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-018-9467-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Review of Accounting Studies 4/2018 Go to the issue