IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pacfin/v71y2022ics0927538x21001530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of managerial power on regulatory inquiries from stock exchanges: Evidence from the text tone of Chinese listed companies' annual reports

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, Qingzi
  • Yang, Fan
  • Liu, Minglang

Abstract

This paper uses A-share companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Markets from 2014 to 2019 to empirically examine the impact of managerial power on stock exchanges' regulatory inquiries of firms' annual reports and the mediating effect of annual report tone. The study finds that the greater management's power, the less likely the firm is to receive a regulatory inquiry letter regarding its annual report in the disclosure year. In addition, the greater the managerial power, the more positive the annual report tone. The tone of the annual report has a mediating effect on the relation between managerial power and annual report regulatory inquiry. Further research manifests that the motivation of the managements is not obvious to use their power to reduce the annual report regulatory inquiry through tone manipulation when the company is experiencing poor performance. If the company received a regulatory inquiry letter concerning its annual report in the previous year, the impact of managerial power on the likelihood of receiving another regulatory inquiry letter in the current year is not obvious either. The inhibiting effect of managerial power on regulatory inquiry into annual reports is more significant among non–state-owned enterprises, compared to state-owned enterprises. This study provides rich evidence on managerial power theory and an important reference for regulatory authorities to pay attention to managerial power and annual report tone.

Suggested Citation

  • Cao, Qingzi & Yang, Fan & Liu, Minglang, 2022. "Impact of managerial power on regulatory inquiries from stock exchanges: Evidence from the text tone of Chinese listed companies' annual reports," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:pacfin:v:71:y:2022:i:c:s0927538x21001530
    DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2021.101646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927538X21001530
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.pacfin.2021.101646?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. David F. Larcker & Anastasia A. Zakolyukina, 2012. "Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 495-540, May.
    2. Narayan, Paresh Kumar, 2019. "Can stale oil price news predict stock returns?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 430-444.
    3. Gul, Ferdinand A. & Leung, Sidney, 2004. "Board leadership, outside directors' expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 351-379.
    4. Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Nasiri, Maryam Akbari, 2020. "Understanding corporate debt from the oil market perspective," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. Yin, Xiao-Cui & Li, Xin & Wang, Min-Hui & Qin, Meng & Shao, Xue-Feng, 2021. "Do economic policy uncertainty and its components predict China's housing returns?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    7. Warfield, Terry D. & Wild, John J. & Wild, Kenneth L., 1995. "Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 61-91, July.
    8. Miles Gietzmann & Adam Ostaszewski, 2014. "Why managers with low forecast precision select high disclosure intensity: an equilibrium analysis," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 121-153, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Devpura, Neluka & Wang, Hua, 2020. "Japanese currency and stock market—What happened during the COVID-19 pandemic?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 191-198.
    11. 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.
    12. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Fried, Jesse M., 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt81q3136r, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    13. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 71-92, Summer.
    14. Tim Loughran & Bill Mcdonald, 2011. "When Is a Liability Not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10‐Ks," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(1), pages 35-65, February.
    15. R. David Mclean & Tianyu Zhang & Mengxin Zhao, 2012. "Why Does the Law Matter? Investor Protection and Its Effects on Investment, Finance, and Growth," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(1), pages 313-350, February.
    16. Adhikari, Ajay & Betancourt, Luis & Alshameri, Faleh, 2014. "The SEC's Proposed IFRS Roadmap: An analysis of comment letters using content analysis and textual software," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 98-108.
    17. Rick Johnston & Reining Petacchi, 2017. "Regulatory Oversight of Financial Reporting: Securities and Exchange Commission Comment Letters," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 1128-1155, June.
    18. Kai Li & Hernán Ortiz‐Molina & Xinlei Zhao, 2008. "Do Voting Rights Affect Institutional Investment Decisions? Evidence from Dual‐Class Firms," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 37(4), pages 713-745, December.
    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. Liu, Chao & Wang, FeiFei & Xue, Wenjun, 2023. "The annual report tone and return Comovement—Evidence from China's stock market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Yuan, Sai & Zhou, Ran & Li, Mengna & Lv, Chengchao, 2023. "Investigating the influence of digital technology application on employee compensation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    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. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.
    2. Koulikidou, Kleopatra & Chantziaras, Antonios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Leventis, Stergios, 2023. "Regulatory enforcement, foreignness, and language negativity: Evidence from SEC comment letters," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    3. Wolfgang Breuer & Andreas Knetsch & Astrid Juliane Salzmann, 2020. "What Does It Mean When Managers Talk About Trust?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 473-488, October.
    4. Ferrell, Allen & Liang, Hao & Renneboog, Luc, 2016. "Socially responsible firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 585-606.
    5. Hills, Robert & Kubic, Matthew & Mayew, William J., 2021. "State sponsors of terrorism disclosure and SEC financial reporting oversight," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    6. Chantziaras, Antonios & Koulikidou, Kleopatra & Leventis, Stergios, 2021. "The power of words in capital markets: SEC comment letters on foreign issuers and the impact of home country enforcement," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    7. Hong, Yun & Yao, Youfu, 2024. "Can comment letters impact excess perks? Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Bum†Jin Park, 2017. "Auditors’ Economic Incentives and the Sensitivity of Managerial Pay to Accounting Performance," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 382-399, December.
    10. Surjit Tinaikar, 2014. "Voluntary disclosure and ownership structure: an analysis of dual class firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(2), pages 373-417, May.
    11. Wanyi Chen & Ning Hu & Xiangfang Zhao, 2022. "Information asymmetry, regulatory inquiry, and company mergers and acquisitions: evidence from Shenzhen Stock Exchange comment letters," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2497-2542, June.
    12. Matthew Ege & Jennifer L. Glenn & John R. Robinson, 2020. "Unexpected SEC Resource Constraints and Comment Letter Quality†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 33-67, March.
    13. Chiraz Ben Ali & Frederic Teulon, 2014. "CEO Monitoring and board effectiveness: Resolving CEO compensation issue," Working Papers 2014-45, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    14. Kanapathippillai, Sutharson & Johl, Shireenjit K. & Wines, Graeme, 2016. "Remuneration committee effectiveness and narrative remuneration disclosure," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 384-402.
    15. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-045 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. James, Hui Liang & Ngo, Thanh & Wang, Hongxia, 2021. "Independent director tenure and corporate transparency," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    17. Calcagno, R. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2004. "Capital Structure and Managerial Compensation : The Effects of Renumeration Seniority," Discussion Paper 2004-120, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Qiu, Buhui & Trapkov, Svetoslav & Yakoub, Fadi, 2014. "Do target CEOs trade premiums for personal benefits?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 23-41.
    19. Matthias Kiefer & Edward Jones & Andrew Adams, 2016. "Principals, Agents and Incomplete Contracts: Are Surrender of Control and Renegotiation the Solution?," CFI Discussion Papers 1603, Centre for Finance and Investment, Heriot Watt University.
    20. Agliardi, Elettra & Andergassen, Rainer, 2009. "Last resort gambles, risky debt and liquidation policy," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 142-155, August.
    21. Matthias Efing & Harald Hau & Patrick Kampkötter & Jean-Charles Rochet & Itay Goldstein, 2023. "Bank Bonus Pay as a Risk Sharing Contract," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 235-280.

    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:pacfin:v:71:y:2022:i:c:s0927538x21001530. 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/pacfin .

    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.