IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i6p3419-3428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Freedom of Information Act Foil the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Intent to Keep Investigations Confidential?

Author

Listed:
  • Braiden Coleman

    (Department of Accounting, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Kenneth Merkley

    (Department of Accounting, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Brian Miller

    (Department of Accounting, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

  • Joseph Pacelli

    (Department of Accounting, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405)

Abstract

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a long-standing policy to keep formal investigations confidential. In this study, we examine the extent to which compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides investors with information about ongoing SEC investigations. We exploit a unique empirical setting whereby the SEC denies FOIA requests because of ongoing enforcement proceedings (hereafter, exemption denials). We find that exemption denials predict a substantial number of ongoing and future SEC investigations. Exemption denials are also associated with significant negative future abnormal returns, which is consistent with exemption denials providing a noisy public signal that allows certain sophisticated investors to earn future abnormal returns. Overall, our findings suggest that information transparency laws such as FOIA have the potential to limit the SEC’s ability to maintain effective and confidential investigations.

Suggested Citation

  • Braiden Coleman & Kenneth Merkley & Brian Miller & Joseph Pacelli, 2021. "Does the Freedom of Information Act Foil the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Intent to Keep Investigations Confidential?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3419-3428, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:6:p:3419-3428
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3625
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3625?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Gargano & Alberto G. Rossi & Russ Wermers, 2017. "The Freedom of Information Act and the Race Toward Information Acquisition," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 2179-2228.
    2. Kedia, Simi & Rajgopal, Shiva, 2011. "Do the SEC's enforcement preferences affect corporate misconduct?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 259-278, April.
    3. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    4. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. "On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    5. Daniel, Kent, et al, 1997. "Measuring Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic-Based Benchmarks," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(3), pages 1035-1058, July.
    6. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    7. Shumway, Tyler, 1997. "The Delisting Bias in CRSP Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 327-340, March.
    8. Weili GE & Dawn Matsumoto & Jenny Li Zhang, 2011. "Do CFOs Have Style? An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Individual CFOs on Accounting Practices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1141-1179, 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. Gaurav Kankanhalli & Alan Kwan, 2024. "Bargaining power in the market for intellectual property: Evidence from licensing contract terms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 109-173, March.
    2. Holzman, Eric R. & Marshall, Nathan T. & Schmidt, Brent A., 2024. "When are firms on the hot seat? An analysis of SEC investigation preferences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).

    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. Bartram, Söhnke M. & Grinblatt, Mark, 2018. "Agnostic fundamental analysis works," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 125-147.
    2. Owen Lamont, 2004. "Go Down Fighting: Short Sellers vs. Firms," NBER Working Papers 10659, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Gilstrap, Collin & Petkevich, Alex & Teterin, Pavel, 2020. "Striking up with the in crowd: When option markets and insiders agree," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Ang, Tze Chuan ‘Chewie’ & Lam, F.Y. Eric C. & Wei, K.C. John, 2020. "Mispricing firm-level productivity," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 139-163.
    5. Randolph B. Cohen & Joshua D. Coval & Ľuboš Pástor, 2005. "Judging Fund Managers by the Company They Keep," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(3), pages 1057-1096, June.
    6. Lee, Charles M.C. & Sun, Stephen Teng & Wang, Rongfei & Zhang, Ran, 2019. "Technological links and predictable returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 76-96.
    7. Ashiq Ali & Xuanjuan Chen & Tong Yao & Tong Yu, 2008. "Do Mutual Funds Profit from the Accruals Anomaly?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Huang, Yuan & Lam, F.Y. Eric C. & Wei, K.C. John, 2014. "The q-theory explanation for the external financing effect: New evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 69-81.
    9. Jiang, Hao, 2010. "Institutional investors, intangible information, and the book-to-market effect," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 98-126, April.
    10. Gregory Connor & Lisa R. Goldberg & Robert A. Korajczyk, 2010. "Portfolio Risk Analysis," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9224.
    11. Leung, Woon Sau & Evans, Kevin P. & Mazouz, Khelifa, 2020. "The R&D anomaly: Risk or mispricing?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Goto, Shingo & Xiao, Gang & Xu, Yan, 2015. "As told by the supplier: Trade credit and the cross section of stock returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 296-309.
    13. Kumar, Nitish & Mullally, Kevin & Ray, Sugata & Tang, Yuehua, 2020. "Prime (information) brokerage," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 371-391.
    14. Avramov, Doron & Chordia, Tarun, 2006. "Predicting stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 387-415, November.
    15. Jie Cao & Tarun Chordia & Xintong Zhan, 2021. "The Calendar Effects of the Idiosyncratic Volatility Puzzle: A Tale of Two Days?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7866-7887, December.
    16. Eun, Cheol & Lee, Kyuseok & Wei, Fengrong, 2023. "Dual role of the country factors in international asset pricing: The local factors and proxies for the global factors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    17. Cici, Gjergji & Gehde-Trapp, Monika & Göricke, Marc-André & Kempf, Alexander, 2014. "What they did in their previous life: The investment value of mutual fund managers' experience outside the financial sector," CFR Working Papers 14-11, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    18. Turan G. Bali & Robert F. Engle & Yi Tang, 2017. "Dynamic Conditional Beta Is Alive and Well in the Cross Section of Daily Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3760-3779, November.
    19. John M.R. Chalmers & Roger M. Edelen & Gregory B. Kadlec, 1999. "Transaction-cost Expenditures and the Relative Performance of Mutual Funds," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 00-02, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    20. Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2021. "The ordering of historical returns and the cross-section of subsequent returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:6:p:3419-3428. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.