Investors Prefer It When Corporations Are Specific about the Risk They Face
Skip to content
Podcast | Insight Unpacked Season 1: Extraordinary Brands and How to Build Them
Policy Sep 1, 2017

Investors Prefer It When Corporations Are Specific about the Risk They Face

The market values detailed risk disclosures. But executives should be cautious about oversharing.

A woman fills out an SEC risk disclosure form.

Lisa Röper

Based on the research of

Ole-Kristian Hope

Danqi Hu

Hai Lu

The 2007 financial crisis arose, in part, from overleveraged banks and credit agencies underestimating market risk. Which begs the question: Is there a better way to communicate risk? If, for instance, companies had to disclose specific risks in corporate filings, would the market find this useful?

There is already a vehicle to do just that. Each year, corporations must fill out the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-mandated 10-K form, which includes an open-ended section on qualitative risk. But firms are given broad latitude in terms of how much detail they present. Instead of simply reporting that sales are reliant upon a limited number of customers, for instance, a firm might offer the names of three specific corporate customers that together account for 40 percent of sales.

Since the financial crisis, the SEC has called for more specificity in these reports. Yet many analysts believe this sort of filing-based risk disclosure is of limited value.

So in recent research, Danqi Hu, an assistant professor of accounting management and information at the Kellogg School, set out to learn the extent to which the market values specificity. She teamed with coauthors Ole-Kristian Hope of University of Toronto and Hai Lu of University of Toronto.

The researchers uncovered a link between risk-related specificity in the 10-Ks and increased market activity such as trading volume, along with more reliable analyst forecasting.

“We believe specificity is important and valuable to the market,” Hu says.

Yet what is good for the market, which likes to see transparency in corporate decision-making, is not necessarily good for the corporation. While these findings show that investors and analysts may benefit from more specific risk reporting, executives need to consider the potential downsides of over-specifying risk, Hu says.

The Debate about Risk Reporting

While a great deal of attention is paid by the market and researchers to the financial-performance sections of the 10-K and similar filings—such as information related to earnings and assets—risk-related information tends to be less of a focus.

“There’s debate about whether the risk-reporting sections of some corporate filings are of any use at all,” Hu says. She notes that many analysts think it is “purely boilerplate” information.

“Financial performance is interesting, of course,” Hu says, “but we wanted to see what we could learn from risk information.”

“We believe specificity is important and valuable to the market.” 

The researchers were especially interested in the level of detail provided in the 10-K on risks. How many details did firms offer, for example, about the nature and intensity of their competition, liquidity problems, potential technology disruptions, or the challenges of doing business in politically unstable parts of the world?

“Many financial managers do update the section with anything material,” Hu says, “so it’s not truly boilerplate.”

Capturing Risk Specificity

To study the impact of risk specificity in corporate filings, the researchers analyzed nearly 15,000 10-Ks filed with the SEC from 2006 to 2011.

They defined specificity as using names (such as “Microsoft”), locations (“China”), numbers (“25 percent of revenues”), dates, and other information in the disclosure of qualitative risk. “The good examples we saw in filings used lots of specific information, such as competitors’ names and the percent of business exposed to the challenges of specific emerging markets,” Hu says.

The team used a computer algorithm to assess the specificity of the relevant section in the 10-K. Then they compared risk specificity with market activity, analyst forecasts and scenarios, and other measures.

It Is a Trade-off

As they had predicted, the researchers found that greater specificity in risk disclosure was related to increased market activity and analysts’ accuracy.

“The idea is that more specificity helps investors to incorporate a wider range of risk information in decision-making,” Hu says, resulting in a stronger short-term market reaction.

The findings represent an interesting trade-off for corporations, according to Hu. “From a company perspective, if you want your audience to understand more about the risk your business faces, be more specific,” she says.

But all firms may not want to emphasize such transparency.

“If the goal is not to promote understanding in the market, then firms are more likely to use boilerplate risk information,” Hu says.

For corporations, she points out the downside of over-specifying risk: “Information that’s too specific may signal something negative to competitors or investors. Investors might think you’re too risky or have too high a cost of capital or cost of equity.”

Thus, the research points to the need for a strategic approach to risk specificity on the part of executives. While presenting more specific information will benefit analysts and investors, senior managers should think carefully about their objectives when communicating risk, and potential downsides.

Exactly what goes into the risk sections of corporate filings may become even more critical because the SEC is considering reducing the length of corporate filings for simplicity.

“That means it will be even more important to provide the most specific, relevant information, depending on your goals,” Hu says.

Featured Faculty

Assistant Professor of Accounting Information & Management

About the Writer
Sachin Waikar is a freelance writer based in Evanston, Illinois.
About the Research
Hope, Ole-Kristian, Danqi Hu, and Hai Lu. 2016. “The Benefits of Specific Risk-Factor Disclosures.” Review of Accounting Studies. 21(4): 1005–1045.

Read the original

Most Popular This Week
  1. What Went Wrong with FTX—and What’s Next for Crypto?
    One key issue will be introducing regulation without strangling innovation, a fintech expert explains.
    stock trader surrounded by computer monitors
  2. Podcast: What the FTX Meltdown Means for the Future of Crypto
    The implosion of the crypto exchange has sent the industry reeling. We dig into what happened and whether cryptocurrency, as a concept, can weather the storm.
  3. What Donors Need to Hear to Open the Checkbook
    Insights from marketing on how charities can grow by appealing to different kinds of donors.
  4. The Complicated Logic Behind Donating to a Food Pantry Rather than Giving a Hungry Person Cash
    If we were in need, we’d likely want money. So what accounts for that difference?
    Donating food is paternalistic aid
  5. To Improve Fundraising, Give Donors a Local Connection
    Research offers concrete strategies for appealing to donors who want to make an impact.
    Charity appeals that frame the message around local connection tend to be more successful as a result of the proximity effect
  6. Which Form of Government Is Best?
    Democracies may not outlast dictatorships, but they adapt better.
    Is democracy the best form of government?
  7. Take 5: The Upside of Failure
    A look at the surprising benefits of striking out, and how to make the most of your mistakes.
    Scientists who experienced an early-career setback succeeded more in the long run, new research shows.
  8. How You Can Make a More Positive Social Impact
    A 3-step guide to becoming a more thoughtful consumer and donor.
    person with money deciding which box to put it in.
  9. Why Leaders Should Nurture Their Social–Emotional Intelligence
    These four skills can diffuse conflict, particularly within family businesses.
    A leader uses social-emotional intelligence to stay calm in the midst of conflict
  10. Why Well-Meaning NGOs Sometimes Do More Harm than Good
    Studies of aid groups in Ghana and Uganda show why it’s so important to coordinate with local governments and institutions.
    To succeed, foreign aid and health programs need buy-in and coordination with local partners.
  11. How Experts Make Complex Decisions
    By studying 200 million chess moves, researchers shed light on what gives players an advantage—and what trips them up.
    two people playing chess
  12. How Are Black–White Biracial People Perceived in Terms of Race?
    Understanding the answer—and why black and white Americans may percieve biracial people differently—is increasingly important in a multiracial society.
    How are biracial people perceived in terms of race
  13. To Get Employees Back to the Office, Address These 4 Frictions
    An innovation expert explains how to meet resistance head-on.
    employees encounter obstacles in front of their office
  14. What Went Wrong at AIG?
    Unpacking the insurance giant's collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.
    What went wrong during the AIG financial crisis?
  15. How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?
    Tone is key, according to new research, which found that a change in TV ad strategy could have altered the results of the 2000 presidential election.
    Political advertisements on television next to polling place
  16. Immigrants to the U.S. Create More Jobs than They Take
    A new study finds that immigrants are far more likely to found companies—both large and small—than native-born Americans.
    Immigrant CEO welcomes new hires
  17. Six Tools for Communicating Complex Ideas
    Business leaders need to know how to make their information stick.
    A business leader communicates complex ideas to a circle of employees.