Market Reaction to Events Surrounding the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 and Earnings Management

By Haidan Li, Morton Pincus, Sonja O. Rego. Journal law and economy, 2008

373 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0fd3e11923a1602b36ca28336bd79e2a662774c8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Finance

Citations in the corpus

Valuation of firms that disclose related party transactions (2010, background): “This event is considered the point when SOX passage became likely as opposition in the US Congress disappeared (Li et al., 2008).”
Does investment efficiency improve after the disclosure of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting (2013, background): “In line with these concerns, Berger et al. (2005), Zhang (2007), and Li et al. (2008) document the costs of implementing the SOX requirements with regard to auditing and reporting on internal controls.”
Economic Consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (2007, neutral): “Both Rezaee and Jain (2002) and Li et al. (2004) investigate market reactions to SOX rulemaking activities and conclude that SOX is beneficial.”
Sec Scrutiny and the Evolution of Non-Gaap Reporting (2008, neutral): “This literature has recently exploded, with researchers investigating the effects of SOX on stock prices (Zhang 2007; Li et al. 2008), going-private decisions (Engel et al.”
Cross-sectional variation in the economic consequences of international accounting harmonization: The case of mandatory IFRS adoption in the UK ☆ (2007, methodology): “To test H1Awe apply the Sefcik and Thompson (1986) portfolio-weighting approach commonly used to test the effect of firm characteristics on stock market reaction to time clustered events (e.g., Comprix et al., 2003; Li, Pincus, and Rego, 2004).”
Market Reaction to Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure (2019, neutral): “Notably, this contrasts with the findings in other regulatory settings, which document a more positive market reaction among firms that stand to benefit more from the regulation—such as those exhibiting below median preregulation quality of information (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2010; Li et al. 2008).”
The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research (2015, background): “(2008) argue that the asset pricing tests in Francis et al. (2005) and Ecker et al.”