IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jaecon/v74y2022i1s0165410122000349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, Anne M.

Abstract

SEC confidential treatment (CT) orders are regulatory exemptions that enable firms to redact proprietary information from SEC filings if the disclosure would cause competitive harm and if the information is immaterial to investors. This study examines the role of firms' political connections in the SEC's decisions to approve versus reject CT requests before and after Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny into the CT process. CT requests from politically connected firms are less likely to be rejected before Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny and are more likely to be rejected following these events. When the SEC rejects CT requests, firms must disclose the contents of the unapproved redactions. These disclosures are informative to investors, on average, and are less informative following Congressional intervention and internal SEC scrutiny. Together, these findings contribute to the literature on political influence in SEC oversight and disclosure regulation and provide unique evidence on the role of Congressional intervention in SEC decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, Anne M., 2022. "Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:74:y:2022:i:1:s0165410122000349
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410122000349
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    2. Leuz, Christian & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 2006. "Political relationships, global financing, and corporate transparency: Evidence from Indonesia," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 411-439, August.
    3. repec:cup:jfinqa:v:46:y:2011:i:06:p:1865-1891_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    5. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    6. Barry Weingast, 1984. "The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 147-191, January.
    7. Beaver, William H. & McNichols, Maureen F. & Wang, Zach Z., 2020. "Increased market response to earnings announcements in the 21st century: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1).
    8. Karuna, Christo, 2007. "Industry product market competition and managerial incentives," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 275-297, July.
    9. Yu, Frank & Yu, Xiaoyun, 2011. "Corporate Lobbying and Fraud Detection," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(6), pages 1865-1891, December.
    10. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    11. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Kothari, S.P. & Ramanna, Karthik & Skinner, Douglas J., 2010. "Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 246-286, December.
    14. Peltzman, Sam, 1976. "Toward a More General Theory of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 211-240, August.
    15. Field, Laura & Lowry, Michelle & Shu, Susan, 2005. "Does disclosure deter or trigger litigation?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 487-507, September.
    16. William H. Beaver & Maureen F. McNichols & Zach Z. Wang, 2018. "The information content of earnings announcements: new insights from intertemporal and cross-sectional behavior," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 95-135, March.
    17. S.P. Kothari & Karthik Ramanna & Douglas J. Skinner, 2009. "Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Research in Accounting," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-137, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2010.
    18. Claessens, Stijn & Feijen, Erik & Laeven, Luc, 2008. "Political connections and preferential access to finance: The role of campaign contributions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 554-580, June.
    19. Ramanna, Karthik, 2008. "The implications of unverifiable fair-value accounting: Evidence from the political economy of goodwill accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 253-281, August.
    20. Boone, Audra L. & Floros, Ioannis V. & Johnson, Shane A., 2016. "Redacting proprietary information at the initial public offering," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 102-123.
    21. Greene, William, 2010. "Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 291-296, May.
    22. Jones Heese & Mozaffar Khan & Karthik Ramanna, 2017. "Is the SEC Captured? Evidence from Comment-Letter Reviews," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-087, Harvard Business School.
    23. Joskow, Paul L, 1974. "Inflation and Environmental Concern: Structural Change in the Process of Public Utility Price Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 291-327, October.
    24. MARA FACCIO & RONALD W. MASULIS & JOHN J. McCONNELL, 2006. "Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(6), pages 2597-2635, December.
    25. Jesse A. Ellis & C. Edward Fee & Shawn E. Thomas, 2012. "Proprietary Costs and the Disclosure of Information About Customers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 685-727, June.
    26. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    27. Glaeser, Stephen, 2018. "The effects of proprietary information on corporate disclosure and transparency: Evidence from trade secrets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 163-193.
    28. Peltzman, Sam, 1973. "An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(5), pages 1049-1091, Sept.-Oct.
    29. Olson, Mary K, 1995. "Regulatory Agency Discretion among Competing Industries: Inside the FDA," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 379-405, October.
    30. Ole‐Kristian Hope & Wayne B. Thomas, 2008. "Managerial Empire Building and Firm Disclosure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 591-626, June.
    31. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.
    32. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    33. Aiyesha Dey, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Agency Conflicts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1143-1181, December.
    34. Robert E. Verrecchia & Joseph Weber, 2006. "Redacted Disclosure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 791-814, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Saavedra, 2023. "Do firms follow the SEC’s confidential treatment protocols? Evidence from credit agreements," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 1388-1412, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    4. Miguel Duro & Jonas Heese & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2019. "The effect of enforcement transparency: Evidence from SEC comment-letter reviews," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 780-823, September.
    5. Mehta, Mihir N. & Zhao, Wanli, 2020. "Politician Careers and SEC enforcement against financial misconduct," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    6. Boland, Matthew & Godsell, David, 2021. "Bureaucratic discretion and contracting outcomes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Panagiota Papadimitri & Ansgar Wohlschlegel, 2020. "Lobbying and Enforcement: Theory and Application to Bank Regulation," Working Papers 2020-01, Swansea University, School of Management.
    8. Papadimitri, Panagiota & Pasiouras, Fotios & Pescetto, Gioia & Wohlschlegel, Ansgar, 2021. "Does political influence distort banking regulation? Evidence from the US," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    9. Panagiota Papadimitri & Ansgar Wohlschlegel, 2019. "Lobbying, Regulatory Enforcement and Corporate Governance: Theory and Evidence from Regulatory Enforcement Actions against US Banks," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2019-08, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    10. Fidrmuc, Jana P. & Roosenboom, Peter & Zhang, Eden Quxian, 2018. "Antitrust merger review costs and acquirer lobbying," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 72-97.
    11. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    12. Kuvvet, Emre & Maskara, Pankaj Kumar, 2018. "Former members of the U.S. Congress and fraud enforcement: Does it help to have politically connected friends on the board?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 77-89.
    13. Omrane Guedhami & Jeffrey A. Pittman & Walid Saffar, 2014. "Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 107-162, March.
    14. Adrian, Christofer & Garg, Mukesh & Viet Pham, Anh & Phang, Soon-Yeow & Truong, Cameron, 2022. "Policy and oversight of corporate political activities and the cost of equity capital," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    15. Alan D. Jagolinzer & David F. Larcker & Gaizka Ormazabal & Daniel J. Taylor, 2020. "Political Connections and the Informativeness of Insider Trades," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(4), pages 1833-1876, August.
    16. Hong, Yun & Yao, Youfu, 2024. "Can comment letters impact excess perks? Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Iselin, Michael & Johnson, Bret & Ott, Jacob & Raleigh, Jacob, 2022. "Protecting wall street or main street: SEC monitoring and enforcement of retail-owned firms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117743, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Hutton, Amy & Shu, Susan & Zheng, Xin, 2022. "Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 297-321.
    19. Mingyi Hung & Yongtae Kim & Siqi Li, 2018. "Political connections and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from around the world," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(3), pages 272-302, April.
    20. Beyer, Anne & Cohen, Daniel A. & Lys, Thomas Z. & Walther, Beverly R., 2010. "The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 296-343, December.

    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:eee:jaecon:v:74:y:2022:i:1:s0165410122000349. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jae .

    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.