Segment profitability and the proprietary and agency costs of disclosure

Accounting Review

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 869-906

  Berger, Philip G ^a   Hann, Rebecca N ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Agency costs; Discretionary disclosure; Proprietary costs; Segment profitability; Segment reporting

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548203129     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2007.82.4.869     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR). 1993. Financial Reporting in the 1990s and Beyond: A Position Paper of the Association for Investment Management and Research. Prepared by Peter H. Knutson. Charlottesville, VA: AIMR
2. Bens, D., and S. Monahan. 2004. Disclosure quality and the excess value of diversification. Journal of Accounting Research 42: 691-730.
3. Berger, P., and E. Ofek. 1995. Diversification's effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics 37: 39-65.
4. _, and _. 1999. Causes and effects of corporate refocusing programs. Review of Financial Studies 12: 311-345.
5. _, and R. Hann. 2003. The impact of SFAS No. 131 on information and monitoring. Journal of Accounting Research 41: 163-223.
6. Billett, M., and D. Mauer. 2003. Cross-subsidies, external financing constraints, and the contribution of the internal capital market to firm value. The Review of Financial Studies 16 (4): 1167-1201.
7. Boehmer, E., and A. Ljungqvist. 2004. On the decision to go public: Evidence from privately held firms. Working paper, New York University.
8. Botosan, C., and M. Harris. 2000. Motivations for a change in disclosure frequency and its consequences: An examination of voluntary quarterly segment disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research 38: 329-353.
9. _, and M. Stanford. 2005. Managers' motives to withhold segment disclosures and the effect of SFAS No. 131 on analysts' information environment. The Accounting Review 80: 751-771.
10. Campa, J., and S. Kedia. 2002. Explaining the diversification discount. Journal of Finance 57: 1731-1762.
11. Darrough, M., and N. Stoughton. 1990. Financial disclosure policy in an entry game. Journal of Accounting and Economics 12: 219-243.
12. Denis, D., D. Denis, and A. Sarin. 1997. Agency problems, equity ownership, and corporate diversification. The Journal of Finance 52: 135-160.
13. Ernst & Young LLP. 1998. Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information: FASB SFAS No. 131. New York, NY: Ernst & Young.
14. Ettredge, M., S. Kwon, and D. Smith. 2002. Competitive harm and managers' attitude towards SFAS No. 131. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance 17: 93-109.
15. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1976. Financial Reporting for Segments of a Business Enterprise. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 14. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
16. _. 1997. Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131. Norwalk, CT: FASB.
17. Francis, J., D. Nanda, and P. Olsson. 2006. Voluntary disclosure, information quality, and costs of capital. Working paper, Duke University.
18. Gigler, F. 1994. Self-enforcing voluntary disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research 32: 224-240.
19. Givoly, D., C. Hayn, and J. D'Souza. 1999. Measurement errors and information content of segment reporting. Review of Accounting Studies 4: 15-43.
20. Hail, L., and C. Leuz, 2006. International differences in cost of capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter? Journal of Accounting Research 44: 485-531.
21. Harris, M. 1998. The association between competition and managers' business segment reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 36: 111-128.
22. Hayes, R., and R. Lundholm. 1996. Segment reporting to the capital market in the presence of a competitor. Journal of Accounting Research 34: 261-279.
23. Herrmann, D., and W. Thomas. 2000. An analysis of segment disclosures under SFAS No. 131 and SFAS No. 14. Accounting Horizons 14: 287-302.
24. Lamont, O. 1997. Cash flow and investment: Evidence from internal capital markets. Journal of Finance 52: 83-109.
25. Lang, L., and R. Stulz. 1994. Tobin's Q, corporate diversification and firm performance. Journal of Political Economy 102: 1248-1280.
26. Leuz, C, A. Triantis, and T. Wang. 2006. Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations. Working paper, University of Chicago.
27. Newman, P., and R. Sansing. 1993. Disclosure policies with multiple users. Journal of Accounting Research 31: 92-112.
28. Piotroski, J. 2003. Discretionary segment reporting decisions and the precision of investor beliefs. Working paper, University of Chicago.
29. Rajan, R., H. Servaes, and L. Zingales. 2000. The cost of diversity: The diversification discount and inefficient investment. Journal of Finance 55: 35-80.
30. Sanzhar, S. 2003. Two puzzles about the diversification discount: SFAS #131 and "pseudo-conglomerates." Working paper, London Business School.
31. Sengupta, P. 1998. Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. The Accounting Review 73: 459-474.
32. Shin, H., and R. Stulz. 1998. Are internal capital markets efficient? Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 531-552.
33. Street, D., N. Nichols, and S. Gray. 2000. Segment disclosures under SFAS No. 131: Has business segment reporting improved? Accounting Horizons 14: 259-285.
34. Verrecchia, R. 1983. Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 5: 365-380.
35. Villalonga, B. 2004. Does diversification cause the "diversification discount"? Financial Management 33: 5-27.