Does More Frequent Financial Reporting Bring the Future Forward?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNOPSIS Exploring mandatory financial reporting frequency changes in the United States from 1954 to 1972, we find that a mandatory increase in reporting frequency is associated with an increase in firms’ future earnings response coefficients. This effect is stronger for firms with higher sales seasonality or operating in industries with lower earnings persistence and for firms that provide more voluntary disclosures of forward-looking information after the reporting frequency increase. We also find that investors increase (decrease) the weight on long-term (near-term) earnings when pricing the firm after the reporting frequency increase. Our findings suggest that more frequent mandatory reporting can enhance the ability of investors to predict future earnings by providing additional useful information on future earnings and by triggering more voluntary disclosures. Our study informs the ongoing policy debates on mandatory financial reporting frequency by highlighting the informational benefit of frequent financial reporting for investors. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the paper. JEL Classifications: G14; M41; M48.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it