This study investigates the effect of information acquisition costs on regulator’s review process over financial reporting. Using hand-collected comment letter (CL) data from the Shanghai Stock Exchange, we find that firms located farther away from the regulator are more likely to receive CLs and the review outcomes are more substantive. Additional analyses using propensity score-matched sample, first-tier city sample and misreported sample are consistent with our main findings. More importantly, our empirical results show that the effect of information acquisition cost not only manifest in geographical distance, transportation infrastructure development and economic linkage are also important dimensions through which information acquisition cost would affect regulator’s monitoring activities. In contrast to the findings of prior literature, our results suggest that the regulator uses the review process to mitigate the constraint in monitoring firms with high information acquisition costs.
AgarwalS.HauswaldR. (2010). Distance and private information in lending. Review of Financial Studies, 23(7), 2757–2788. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhq001
2.
BallR.RobinA.WuJ. S. (2000). Accounting standards, the institutional environment and issuer incentives: Effect on timely loss recognition in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 7(2), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2000.10510579
3.
BaughM.KimK.LeeK. J. (2022). The Effect of SEC reviewers on comment letters. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(1), 656–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12734
4.
BernsteinS.GiroudX.TownsendR. R. (2016). The impact of venture capital monitoring. The Journal of Finance, 71(4), 1591–1622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12370
5.
BlackburneT. (2014). Regulatory oversight and reporting incentives: Evidence from SEC budget allocations, Working Paper.
6.
BlankespoorE.DeHaanE.MarinovicI. (2020). Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 70(2-3), Article 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2020.101344
CassellC. A.DreherL. M.MyersL. A. (2013). Reviewing the SEC's review process: 10-k comment letters and the cost of remediation. The Accounting Review, 88(6), 1875–1908. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50538
9.
ChenY.DengW.LiZ. (2019). Effectiveness of the front-line regulation of the Chinese stock exchanges: Evidence from comment letters. Management World, 35(3), 169–185+208. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2019.0042
10.
ChenM.GuiQ.LuM.ChenZ. (2008). How to maintain China’s high growth rate via scale economy-an empirical study of economic opening and domestic market segmentation. China Economic Quarterly, 7(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.13821/j.cnki.ceq.2008.01.011
11.
CovalJ. D.MoskowitzT. J. (1999). Home bias at home: Local equity preference in domestic portfolios. The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 2045–2073. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00181
12.
CunninghamL. M.LeidnerJ. J. (2022). The SEC filing review process: A survey and future research opportunities. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(3), 1653–1688. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12742
13.
DechowP. M.DichevI. D. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(s-1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2002.77.s-1.35
14.
DuanT.LiK.RogoR.ZhangR. (2024). The Effects of a U.S. approach to enforcement: Evidence from China. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 59(1), 121–156. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022109023000352
15.
EgeM.GlennJ. L.RobinsonJ. R. (2020). Unexpected SEC resource constraints and comment letter quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(1), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12505
16.
General Accounting Office (GAO). (2007). Securities and Exchange Commission. Additional actions needed to ensure planned improvements address limitations in enforcement division—operations, Report No. 7-830.
17.
GunnyK. A.HermisJ. M. (2020). How busyness influences SEC compliance activities: Evidence from the filing review process and comment letters. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12507
18.
HealyP. M.PalepuK. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 405–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00018-0
19.
HeeseJ.KhanM.RamannaK. (2017). Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.06.002
20.
IvkovićZ.WeisbennerS. (2005). Local does as local is: Information content of the geography of individual investors' common stock investments. The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 267–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00730.x
21.
JohnK.KnyazevaA.KnyazevaD. (2011). Does geography matter? Firm location and corporate payout policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.014
22.
JohnstonR. (2025). Comment letter research-quo Vadis?, Working Paper.
23.
JohnstonR.PetacchiR. (2017). Regulatory oversight of financial reporting: Securities and exchange commission comment letters. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(2), 1128–1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12297
24.
KediaS.RajgopalS. (2011). Do the SEC's enforcement preferences affect corporate misconduct?Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.01.004
25.
KubicM. (2021). Examining the examiners: SEC error detection rates and human capital allocation. The Accounting Review, 96(3), 313–341. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2017-0581
26.
KubickT. R.LockhartG. B.MillsL. F.RobinsonJ. R. (2017). IRS and corporate taxpayer effects of geographic proximity. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 63(2-3), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.09.005
La PortaR.Lopez-De-SilanesF.ShleiferA.VishnyR. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. The Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329518
McNicholsM. (2002). Discussion of the quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(s-1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2002.77.s-1.61
PiotroskiJ. D.WongT. J. (2012). Institutions and information environment of Chinese listed firms. In FanJ.MorckR. (Eds.), Capitalizing China (pp. 201–242). University of Chicago Press.
33.
SahinF.RobinsonE. P. (2002). Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains, review, implications, and directions for future research. Decision Sciences, 33(4), 505–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01654.x
34.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2017). Evaluation of the division of corporation finance’s disclosure review and comment letter process.
35.
ShipmanJ. E.SwanquistQ. T.WhitedR. L. (2017). Propensity score matching in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 92(1), 213–244. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51449
36.
StiglerG. J. (1964). Public regulation of the securities markets. The Journal of Business, 37(2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1086/294677
