The Transfer Information Disclosure Models and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from the Industry Information Disclosure Guidelines

Abstract

Abstract: Information is the core element of the capital market, and high-quality information disclosure is the cornerstone of the healthy and stable development of the capital market. Strengthening the construction of information disclosure system, enhancing the transparency of information and better meeting the decision-making needs of investors are the focus of the work of regulatory authorities. With the rapid development of economy, various new economic models and forms are emerging, and the business development shows obvious characteristics of differentiation and diversification. In this context, the industry structure and scale of China's listed companies have also undergone great changes, and gradually formed a new market industry pattern of “one institute connected to all industries”. Considering the differences of business models and businesses among industries, in order to better convey the information about the operation of the company to users, since 2013, the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange successively issued the industry information disclosure guidelines of listed companies and formulated the industry key indicators and differentiated information disclosure standards. However, there is still little literature on the impact of the change of industry-specific information disclosure model on the improvement of the information environment of the capital market.
Based on the sample of A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen from 2009 to 2019, this paper deeply explores the impact of information disclosure by industry on the stock crash risk and its mechanism. The results of the difference in difference model show that the implementation of the disclosure by industry policy significantly reduces stock price crash risk. Further cross-sectional analysis examines the heterogeneity of the company's internal and external environment, and the results show that when the company's internal control level is low and the external regulatory environment is poor, disclosure by industry has a more significant mitigation effect on stock price crash risk. The mechanism analysis finds that information disclosure by industry can help reduce the agency cost of management and inhibit its concealment of bad news, and at the same time increase analyst tracking and strengthen information dissemination and absorption, thereby mitigating the risk of stock price crash.
The theoretical contributions and practical valuesare as follows: Firstly, the influencing factors of stock price crash risk are examined from a new perspective. The prior literature on stock price crash risk is mainly based on the characteristics of internal and external corporate governance, but little attention has been paid to the impact of changes in market information disclosure models. This paper provides a supplement. Secondly, it helps to better understand the policy effects of the implementation of information disclosure by industry guidelines. Promoting information disclosure by industry a hot issue in the reform of the information disclosure system in the capital market in recent years. However, there is still little literature concerned with the implementation effect of this reform. This paper studies this issue from the perspective of stock price crash risk and information environment improvement, which makes up for the deficiencies of previous literature. Thirdly, this paper has certain practical significance. The research conclusions of this paper show that the implementation of information disclosure by industry has played an important role in regulating the opportunistic behavior of management and improving the flow and dissemination of information. Therefore, securities regulatory authorities should continue to further promote the construction of information disclosure systems by industry, fully consider the heterogeneity of business models between industries, and formulate more targeted industry substantive disclosure indicators. At the same time, we should vigorously improve the company's internal control level, improve the external supervision mechanism, and form a joint effort to maintain market stability.

Key words: Disclosure by Industry, Stock Price Crash Risk, Information Environment, Agency Cost

摘要： 利用沪深交易所交错发布上市公司行业信息披露指引这一独特制度场景,从股价崩盘风险的视角,探究分行业披露政策实施引致的信息披露模式变迁对资本市场的影响。双重差分模型的结果显示,分行业披露政策的实施显著降低了公司股价崩盘风险;并且这一效应在内部控制水平较低、外部治理环境较差的公司样本中更为明显。这表明,分行业披露政策与公司内外部治理机制在降低股价崩盘风险上具有一定的替代性。进一步研究发现,分行业信息披露有助于降低管理层代理成本抑制其对坏消息的隐藏,同时增加分析师跟踪强化信息传播和吸收,进而缓解股价崩盘风险。本文的研究不仅丰富了信息披露与股价崩盘风险相关领域的理论文献,同时对我国资本市场正在进行的信息披露制度改革实践也具有重要的参考意义。

关键词: 分行业披露, 股价崩盘风险, 信息环境, 代理成本

CLC Number:

F832.5

ZHAO Ling, Huang Hao. The Transfer Information Disclosure Models and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from the Industry Information Disclosure Guidelines[J]. Collected Essays on Finance and Economics, 2022, 38(7): 79-89.

赵玲, 黄昊. 信息披露模式变迁与股价崩盘风险——基于行业信息披露指引发布的证据[J]. 财经论丛, 2022, 38(7): 79-89.

References

[1] Biddle G. C., Hilary G. Accounting Quality and Firm-Level Capital Investment[J]. Accounting Review, 2006, (81): 963-982.
[2] Kim C., Wang K., Zhang, L. Readability of 10-K Reports and Stock Price Crash Risk[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2019, 36(2): 1184-1216.
[3] 丁慧, 吕长江, 黄海杰. 社交媒体、投资者信息获取和解读能力与盈余预期——来自“上证e互动”平台的证据[J]. 经济研究,2018, (1):153-168.
[4] 叶康涛, 刘芳, 李帆. 股指成份股调整与股价崩盘风险: 基于一项准自然实验的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2018, (3):172-189.
[5] 褚剑, 方军雄. 政府审计的外部治理效应: 基于股价崩盘风险的研究[J]. 财经研究, 2017, (4):133-144.
[6] 彭俞超, 倪骁然, 沈吉. 企业“脱实向虚”与金融市场稳定——基于股价崩盘风险的视角[J]. 经济研究, 2018, (10):52-68.
[7] Jin L., Myers S. C. R2 Around the World: New Theory and New Tests[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2006, 79(2): 257-292.
[8] Hutton A. P., Marcus A. J., Tehranian H. Opaque Financial Reports, R2, and Crash Risk[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2009, 94(1): 67-86.
[9] Callen J. L., Fang X. Religion and Stock Price Crash Risk[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2015, 50(1-2): 169-195.
[10] Li X., Wang S. S., Wang X. Trust and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from China[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2017, 76(1): 74-91.
[11] Kim J. B., Li Y., Zhang L. CFOs Versus CEOs: Equity Incentives and Crashes[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2011, 101(3): 713-730.
[12] He G. The Effect of CEO Inside Debt Holdings on Financial Reporting Quality[J]. Review of Accounting Studies, 2015, (20): 501–536.
[13] Chen J., Chan K. C., Dong W., etc. Internal Control and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from China(Article)[J]. European Accounting Review, 2017, 26(1): 125-152.
[14] An H., Zhang T. Stock Price Synchronicity, Crash Risk, and Institutional Investors[J]. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2011, 21(1): 1-15.
[15] Kimbrough M. D., Wang I. Y. Are Seemingly Self-Serving Attributions in Earnings Press Releases Plausible: Empirical Evidence [J]. Accounting Review, 2014, 89(2): 635-667.
[16] De Franco G., Kothari S. P., Verdi R. S. The Benefits of Financial Statement Comparability[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 2011, 49(4): 895–931.
[17] 孙刚, 郑琦. 高新技术企业资质认定与上市企业股价崩盘风险——基于产业政策微观实施的证据[J]. 财经论丛, 2021, (6):78-89.
[18] Campbell J. Y., Hentschel L. No News is Good News: An Asymmetric Model of Changing Volatility in Stock Returns[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1992, 31(3): 281-318.
[19] Hong H., Stein J. C. Differences of Opinion, Short-Sales Constraints, and Market Crashes[J]. Review of Financial Studies, 2003, 16(2): 487-525.
[20] Huber J., Kirchler M. The Impact of Instructions and Procedure on Reducing Confusion and Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets[J]. Experimental Economics, 2012, 15(1): 89-105.
[21] DeFond M. L., Hung M., Li S., etc. Does Mandatory IFRS Adoption Affect Crash Risk? [J]. Accounting Review, 2015, 90(1): 265-299.
[22] Habib A., Hasan M. M., Jiang H.,etc. Stock Price Crash Risk: Review of the Empirical Literature [J]. Accounting and Finance, 2018, (2): 211-251.
[23] Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3(4): 305-360.
[24] 朱红军, 何贤杰, 陶林. 中国的证券分析师能够提高资本市场的效率吗——基于股价同步性和股价信息含量的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2007, (2):113-124.
[25] Jung M. J., Keeley J. H., Ronen J. The Predictability of Analyst Forecast Revisions[J]. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 2019, 34(3): 434-457.
[26] Ayres D. R., Campbell J. L., Chyz J. A., etc. Do Financial Analysts Compel Firms to Make Accounting Decisions? Evidence from Goodwill Impairments [J]. Review of Accounting Studies, 2019, 24(4): 1214-1251.
[27] 方红星, 金玉娜. 高质量内部控制能抑制盈余管理吗?——基于自愿性内部控制鉴证报告的经验研究[J]. 会计研究, 2011, (8):53-60.
[28] Francis J. R., Wang D. The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2008, 25(1): 157-191.
[29] 李延喜, 陈克兢, 姚宏, 等. 基于地区差异视角的外部治理环境与盈余管理关系研究——兼论公司治理的替代保护作用[J]. 南开管理评论, 2012, (4):89-100.
[30] 赵静, 黄敬昌, 刘峰. 高铁开通与股价崩盘风险[J]. 管理世界, 2018, (1):157-168.
[31] 许年行, 江轩宇, 伊志宏, 等. 分析师利益冲突、乐观偏差与股价崩盘风险[J]. 经济研究, 2012, (7):128-141.
[32] 张会丽, 吴有红. 内部控制、现金持有及经济后果[J]. 会计研究, 2014, (3):71-78.
[33] 何贤杰, 王孝钰, 孙淑伟, 等. 网络新媒体信息披露的经济后果研究——基于股价同步性的视角[J]. 管理科学学报, 2018, (6):48-64.
[34] 孟庆斌, 施佳宏, 鲁冰, 等. “轻信”的注册会计师影响了审计质量吗——基于中国综合社会调查的经验研究[J]. 会计研究, 2019, (7):12-20.
[35] 王化成, 曹丰, 叶康涛. 监督还是掏空:大股东持股比列与股价崩盘风险[J]. 管理世界, 2015, (2):45-57.
[36] Kim J. B., Zhang L. Accounting Conservatism and Stock Price Crash Risk: Firm-Level Evidence[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2016, 33(1): 412-441.