Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1468–1503 | Cite as

Initial evidence on the market impact of the XBRL mandate

  • Elizabeth Blankespoor
  • Brian P. Miller
  • Hal D. White


In 2009, the SEC mandated that financial statements be filed using eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). The SEC contends that this new search-facilitating technology will reduce informational barriers that separate smaller, less-sophisticated investors from larger, more-sophisticated investors, thereby reducing information asymmetry. However, if some larger investors can leverage their superior resources and abilities to garner greater benefits from XBRL than smaller investors, information asymmetry is likely to increase. Using a difference-in-difference design, we find evidence of higher abnormal bid-ask spreads for XBRL adopting firms around 10-K filings in the year after the mandate, consistent with increased concerns of adverse selection. We also find a reduction in abnormal liquidity and a decrease in abnormal trading volume, particularly for small trades. Additional analyses suggest, however, that these effects may be declining somewhat in more recent years. Collectively, our evidence suggests that a reduction in investors’ data aggregation costs may not have served its intended purpose of leveling the informational playing field, at least during the initial years after mandatory adoption.


XBRL Disclosure Processing costs Regulation Information asymmetry Market Liquidity 

JEL Classification

M21 M41 M48 



We are grateful to two anonymous referees, Salman Arif, Daniel Beneish, John Core, Anna Costello, Patricia Dechow (Editor), Paul Fischer, Max Hewitt, Charles Lee, Laureen Maines, Greg Miller, Mike Minnis, Joe Piotroski, Marlene Plumlee, Tianshu Qu, Cathy Schrand, Cathy Shakespeare, Nemit Shroff, Dan Taylor, Jim Vincent, Chris Williams, Teri Yohn and workshop participants at Indiana University, Ohio State University, Santa Clara University, University of California—Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Florida, University of Miami, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina, University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), University of Southern California, University of Utah, Washington University and the 2011 Stanford Summer Camp for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank Bob Rand at the SEC for assistance with identifying XBRL filings. Elizabeth Blankespoor gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Deloitte Doctoral Fellowship, Brian Miller gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Arthur Weimer Faculty Fellowship, and Hal White gratefully acknowledges financial support from Ernst and Young.


  1. Akins, B., Ng, J., & Verdi, R. S. (2012). Investor competition over information and the pricing of information asymmetry. The Accounting Review, 81, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, C. S., Core, J. E., Taylor, D. J., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2011). When does information asymmetry affect the cost of capital? Journal of Accounting Research, 49, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asthana, S., Balsam, S., & Sankaraguruswamy, S. (2004). Differential response of small versus large investors to 10-K filings on EDGAR. The Accounting Review, 79, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atiase, R. K. (1985). Predisclosure information, firm capitalization and security price behavior around earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bamber, L. S. (1987). Unexpected earnings, firm size, and trading volume around quarterly earnings announcements. The Accounting Review, 62, 510–532.Google Scholar
  7. Bamber, L., Barron, O., & Stober, T. (1997). Trading volume and different aspects of disagreement coincident with earnings announcements. The Accounting Review, 72, 575–597.Google Scholar
  8. Bamber, L., & Cheon, Y. (1995). Differential price and volume reactions to accounting earnings announcements. The Accounting Review, 70, 417–441.Google Scholar
  9. Barber, B., Odean, T., & Zhu, N. (2009). Do retail trades move markets? The Review of Financial Studies, 22, 151–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barclay, M., & Warner, J. (1993). Stealth trading and volatility: which trades move prices? Journal of Financial Economics, 34, 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bartley, J., Chen, Y., & Taylor, E. (2010). Avoiding common errors of XBRL implementation. Journal of Accountancy, 209, 46–51.Google Scholar
  12. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhattacharya, N. (2001). Investors’ trade size and trading responses around earnings announcements: an empirical investigation. The Accounting Review, 76, 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhattacharya, N., Black, E., Christensen, T., & Mergenthaler, R. (2007). Who trades on pro forma earnings information? The Accounting Review, 82, 581–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blankespoor, E., Miller, G. S. and White, H. (2014). The role of dissemination in market liquidity: Evidence from firms’ use of twitter. The Accounting Review, 89(1).Google Scholar
  16. Bloomfield, R. (2002). The ‘incomplete revelation hypothesis’ and financial reporting. Accounting Horizons, 16, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bushee, B., Matsumoto, D., & Miller, G. (2003). Open versus closed conference calls: The determinants and effects of broadening access to disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 34, 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, J., Ramadorai, T., & Schwartz, A. (2009). Caught on tape: Institutional trading, stock returns, and earnings announcements. Journal of Financial Economics, 92, 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chambers, A., & Penman, S. (1984). Timeliness of reporting and the stock price reaction to earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen, K. J., Maier, S. F., Schwartz, R. A., & Whitcomb, D. K. (1986). The microstructure of securities markets. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Cram, D. P., Karan, V., & Stuart, I. (2009). Three threats to validity of choice-based and matched-sample studies in accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26, 477–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 1085–1142.Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, D., & Verrecchia, R. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. The Journal of Finance, 46, 1325–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Efendi, J., Park, J.D. and Subramaniam, C. (2010). Do XBRL Reports have incremental information content? An empirical analysis. Working paper, The University of Texas at Arlington and Towson University.Google Scholar
  25. Financial Accounting Standards Board. (2011). FASB US GAAP financial reporting taxonomy technical guide: Version 2011. Accessed July 5, 2012 .
  26. Financial Executives International. (2011). FEI—CCR XBRL rulemaking request. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from the FEI’s website:
  27. Glosten, L. R., & Harris, L. E. (1988). Estimating the components of the Bid/Ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 21, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gow, I. D., Ormazabal, G., & Taylor, D. J. (2010). Correcting for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 85, 483–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goyenko, R. Y., Holden, C. W., & Trzcinka, C. A. (2009). Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? Journal of Financial Economics, 92, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grossman, S., & Stiglitz, J. (1980). On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. American Economic Review, 70, 393–407.Google Scholar
  31. Harris, L. (1990). Liquidity, trading rules and electronic trading systems. New York University Monograph Series in Finance and Economics, Monograph No. 1990-4.Google Scholar
  32. Harris, T., and S. Morsfield (2012). An evaluation of the current state and future of XBRL and interactive data for investors and analysts. White Paper, Columbia Business School.Google Scholar
  33. Hasbrouck, J. (2009). Trading costs and returns for U.S. equities: Estimating effective costs from daily data. The Journal of Finance, 64, 1445–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirshleifer, D., & Teoh, S. H. (2003). Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36, 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodge, F., Kennedy, J., & Maines, L. (2004). Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting? The Accounting Review, 79, 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalay, A. (2011). Investor sophistication, disclosure and the information environment of the firm. Dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, O., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1994). Market liquidity and volume around earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kross, W., & Schroeder, D. (1984). An empirical investigation of the effect of quarterly earnings announcement timing on stock returns. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kyle, A. (1985). Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica, 53, 1315–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, C. (1992). Earnings news and small traders: An intra-day analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 15, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, C., Mucklow, B., & Ready, M. J. (1993). Spreads, depths, and the impact of earnings information: An intraday analysis. The Review of Financial Studies, 6, 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, C., & Radhakrishna, B. (2000). Inferring investor behavior: Evidence from TORQ data. Journal of Financial Markets, 3, 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, C., & Ready, M. J. (1991). Inferring trade direction from intraday data. The Journal of Finance, 46, 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leuz, C. and Wysocki, P. (2008). Economic consequences of financial reporting and disclosure regulation: A review and suggestions for future research. Working paper, University of Chicago and University of Miami.Google Scholar
  46. Li, F. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li, E. X., & Ramesh, K. (2009). Market reaction surrounding the filing of periodic SEC reports. The Accounting Review, 84, 1171–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Madhavan, A., Richardson, M., & Roomans, M. (1997). Why do security prices change? A Transaction-level analysis of NYSE stocks. The Review of Financial Studies, 10, 1035–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCann, D. (2010). 18,000 tagging errors in XBRL filings so far: But that’s better than expected, say the SEC and XBRL US. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from the website:
  50. Merrill Corporation. (2012). Where does the market obtain XBRL data? Retrieved July 26, 2012 from Merrill disclosure solutions’ website:
  51. Merton, R. C. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. The Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meulbroek, L. (1992). An empirical analysis of illegal insider trading. The Journal of Finance, 47(5), 1661–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, B. (2010). The effects of reporting complexity on small and large investor trading. The Accounting Review, 85, 1487–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22, 435–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Plumlee, D. R., & Plumlee, M. A. (2008). Assurance on XBRL for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons, 22, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Premuroso, R. F., & Bhattacharya, S. (2008). Do early and voluntary filers of financial information in XBRL format signal superior corporate governance and operating performance? International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Puckett, A., & Yan, X. (2011). The interim trading skills of institutional investors. The Journal of Finance, 66(2), 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2005). XBRL voluntary financial reporting program on the EDGAR system. Release No. 33–8529. Retrieved August 13, 2013 from the SEC’s website:
  59. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2008). Commission guidance on the use of company websites. Release No. 34-58288. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from the SEC’s website:
  60. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2009). Interactive data to improve financial reporting. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from the SEC’s website:
  61. Van Ness, B. F., Van Ness, R. A., & Warr, R. S. (2001). How well do adverse selection components measure adverse selection? Financial Management, 30, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whalen, C. (2004). Opening the books: A new computer format for financial reporting could improve investment analysis. Barron’sOnline. (January 19, 2004).
  63. XBRL U.S. GAAP Financial Taxonomy. (2011) Retrieved July 5, 2012 from the XBRL.US website:
  64. Yohn, T. (1998). Information asymmetry around earnings announcements. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 11, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Blankespoor
    • 1
  • Brian P. Miller
    • 2
  • Hal D. White
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Kelley School of BusinessIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.Ross School of BusinessUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations