The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005

Abstract

In 2005, the SEC mandated that firms disclose risk factors to provide useful information about firm risk. An unintended effect of the mandate is that mandatory risk factor (RF) disclosure may constitute “meaningful cautionary language” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and may therefore provide legal protection for forward-looking statements (FLSs). Using both a difference-in-differences design and a two-stage least squares approach, we find that, following the mandate, firms that had not previously disclosed risk factors (late RF disclosers) became more willing to provide qualitative FLSs, particularly positive ones, than other firms. This finding is consistent with our prediction that, for late RF disclosers, the mandate reduces managers’ perceived litigation risk. We also find that these firms experience improvement in their information environment. A path analysis reveals that the mandate improves firms’ information environment not only directly but also indirectly by prompting more disclosure of positive FLSs, illustrating an unintended benefit of the 2005 RF mandate. Cross-sectional tests show that the RF mandate induces a larger increase in positive FLSs for firms whose managers perceive a higher level of benefit from safe harbor protection arising from meaningful cautionary statements.

FinBERT: A Large Language Model for Extracting Information from Financial Text*

“…Second, they include comments from important stakeholders in financial communications (e.g., managers, financial analysts). Prior studies have consistently documented that such information is informative to investors (Li 2010a; A. H. Huang et al 2014, 2022). Third, because these texts are subject to different regulatory requirements and have different intended audiences and disclosure media, including them in the pretraining stage can expose FinBERT to diverse financial topics and communication styles.…”

“…Prior studies have consistently documented that such information is informative to investors (Li 2010a;A. H. Huang et al 2014A. H. Huang et al , 2022.…”

Market reaction to mandatory sustainability disclosures: evidence from Singapore

“…On the other hand, government regulation (mandatory disclosures) is associated with stricter minimum standards but may also introduce rigidity due to a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Therefore, the market reaction to government regulation on sustainability disclosures depends on whether investors perceive it as a strengthened commitment by issuers to deliver more useful information to investors (Huang et al. , 2022) or as an introduction of rigidity that restricts the flexibility of issuers in developing best practices.…”