IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v37y2020i1p68-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trader Participation in Disclosure: Implications of Interactions with Management†

Author

Listed:
  • W. Brooke Elliott
  • Stephanie M. Grant
  • Jessen L. Hobson
  • Scott Asay

Abstract

Technological advances are creating a shift in the information disclosure environment allowing more investors to interact with management. We examine three key levels of trader‐management interaction to assess the accuracy of traders' market‐tested value estimates and resulting market price. These data require an engaging experiment and a complex, contextually rich asset, which we create by playing a popular gaming app before the experiment. Participants view financial information, ask management questions, estimate value, and trade. We find that receiving non‐personalized question responses improves trader estimates of value and market price efficiency relative to when traders ask questions but do not expect a response. This occurs because traders exert more effort estimating value and trading. However, receiving personalized versus non‐personalized responses harms value estimates and market efficiency. This occurs because traders receiving personalized responses fixate on the interaction with management, dividing their attention and diverting it away from valuing and trading the asset. Participation des opérateurs à la communication d'information : incidence des interactions avec la direction Les progrès technologiques modifient le contexte de la communication d'information en permettant à un plus grand nombre d'investisseurs d'interagir avec la direction. Les auteurs étudient trois niveaux principaux d'interaction entre les opérateurs et la direction, afin d'évaluer l'exactitude des estimations de valeur des opérateurs, testées par rapport au marché, et l'efficience des cours de marché qui en résultent. L'analyze de ces données nécessite une expérience attractive et un actif présentant suffisamment de complexité et de richesse contextuelle, actif que créent les auteurs à l'aide d'une populaire application de jeu préalablement à l'expérience. Les participants voient l'information financière, posent des questions à la direction, estiment la valeur et négocient. Les auteurs constatent que les estimations de valeur des opérateurs et l'efficience des cours de marché sont meilleures lorsque les opérateurs obtiennent des réponses non personnalisées à leurs questions que lorsqu'ils posent des questions sans attendre de réponse. Cela tient au fait que les opérateurs déploient davantage d'effort pour estimer la valeur et négocier. Toutefois, l'obtention de réponses personnalisées, par rapport à celle de réponses non personnalisées, nuit aux estimations de valeur et à l'efficience du marché, du fait que les opérateurs qui obtiennent des réponses personnalisées s'attachent à l'interaction avec la direction, ce qui les distrait et détourne leur attention de l'estimation de la valeur de l'actif et de la négociation.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Brooke Elliott & Stephanie M. Grant & Jessen L. Hobson & Scott Asay, 2020. "Trader Participation in Disclosure: Implications of Interactions with Management†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 68-100, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:68-100
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12524
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12524?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. Hales, Jeffrey, 2009. "Are investors really willing to agree to disagree? An experimental investigation of how disagreement and attention to disagreement affect trading behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 230-241, March.
    2. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    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. Zhao, Wenzhuo & Qin, Luohan & Zhao, Yali & Zuo, Jingjing, 2024. "Social media coverage and perk consumption: Agency view or efficiency view?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 1058-1073.
    2. Xu, Shengxiang & Chen, Hsinghung & Dong, Shuli & Guo, Zizheng, 2023. "Can upgrading information infrastructure improve the innovation ability of companies? Empirical evidence from China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6).
    3. Yuming Zhang & Fan Yang, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Responding to Investors’ Criticism on Social Media," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Wei Deng & Jing Shao, 2022. "Empowering Green Development: How Social Media Interaction Influences Environmental Information Disclosure of High-Polluting Firms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Yang, Mengjun & Zheng, Shilin & Zhou, Lin, 2022. "Broadband internet and enterprise innovation," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(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. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    2. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Achim Hendriks & Susanne A. Welker, 2014. "Effects of Executive Compensation Complexity on Investor Behaviour in an Experimental Stock Market," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 625-645, December.
    3. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Zhang, Ping, 2018. "Informed traders’ performance and the information environment: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-15.
    4. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Luo, Bing, 2019. "Effects of auditor-provided tax services on book-tax differences and on investors' mispricing of book-tax differences," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    6. Abeysekera, Indra, 2016. "Does the classification of intangibles matter? An equivalence testing," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 135-142.
    7. David Hirshleifer & Sonya S. Lim & Siew Hong Teoh, 2011. "Limited Investor Attention and Stock Market Misreactions to Accounting Information," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 35-73.
    8. Cade, Nicole L., 2018. "Corporate social media: How two-way disclosure channels influence investors," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 68, pages 63-79.
    9. Han, Jun, 2013. "A literature synthesis of experimental studies on management earnings guidance," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-70.
    10. Anna P. Kireyenko, 2015. "Methods of investigating taxation in today’s foreign literature," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 1(2-3), pages 209-228.
    11. Karen Green & Benson Wier, 2015. "Influence of Ethical Position and Information Asymmetry on Transfer Price Negotiations," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, February.
    12. Hirshleifer, David & Kewei Hou & Teoh, Siew Hong & Yinglei Zhang, 2004. "Do investors overvalue firms with bloated balance sheets?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 297-331, December.
    13. Borozan, Miloš & Loreta, Cannito & Riccardo, Palumbo, 2022. "Eye-tracking for the study of financial decision-making: A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    14. Leite, Rodrigo de Oliveira & Cardoso, Ricardo Lopes & Jelihovschi, Ana Paula Gomes & Civitarese, Jamil, 2020. "Job market compensation for cognitive reflection ability," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 87-93.
    15. Satoshi Taguchi & Yoshio Kamijo, 2018. "Intentions behind disclosure to promote trust under short-termism: An experimental study," Working Papers SDES-2018-8, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2018.
    16. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    17. Emett, Scott A. & Nelson, Mark W., 2017. "Reporting accounting changes and their multi-period effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 52-72.
    18. Christian Nitzl & Wynne W. Chin, 2017. "The case of partial least squares (PLS) path modeling in managerial accounting research," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 137-156, May.
    19. Luft, Joan & Shields, Michael D., 2014. "Subjectivity in developing and validating causal explanations in positivist accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 550-558.
    20. Oliver Gloede & Lukas Menkhoff, 2014. "Financial Professionals' Overconfidence: Is It Experience, Function, or Attitude?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(2), pages 236-269, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:coacre:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:68-100. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.