BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4//
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:20260525T090634EDT-1978nDbOc5@132.216.98.100
DTSTAMP:20260525T130634Z
DESCRIPTION:\n\nTomas Milo\, a doctoral student at 91şÚÁĎÍř in the
  Accounting area will be presenting his thesis defense entitled:\n\nTwo Es
 says on SEC Reporting Rules\n\nThursday\, May 21\, 2026\, at 11:00 AM \n	(T
 he defense will be conducted online)\n\nStudent Committee Co-chairs: Prof.
  Hongping Tan and Prof. Dongyoung Lee\n\nPlease note that the Thesis defen
 ce will be conducted online. Only the student and their committee members 
 may participate in the presentation.\n\n\nAbstract\n\nThis thesis comprise
 s two essays that examine the consequences of two Securities and Exchange 
 Commission (SEC) reporting rules. In the first study\, I investigate the i
 mpact of the SEC’s 2017 mandate requiring Foreign Private Issuers (FPIs) u
 sing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to file annual rep
 orts in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) format. XBRL is a st
 ructured\, machine-readable format for financial reporting. Leveraging thi
 s regulatory setting\, I find that FPIs subject to mandatory XBRL filings 
 experience an increase in individual ownership. My main finding is driven 
 by individual investors in FPIs’ home countries rather than those in the U
 nited States. I provide two mechanisms for this phenomenon. First\, consis
 tent with an investor attention channel\, the increase is stronger for fir
 ms without American Depositary Receipts (ADR)\, firms with higher local in
 vestor attention\, and smaller firms. Second\, consistent with an investor
  ability mechanism\, the increase is stronger for firms from countries wit
 h pre-existing XBRL mandates and for firms headquartered in countries with
  higher financial literacy. Overall results suggest that the SEC’s 2017 XB
 RL mandate primarily facilitates participation by local individual investo
 rs in FPIs’ home markets\, which is a rather unintended consequence of the
  mandate from the SEC in the United States.\n\nIn the second study\, I exa
 mine how firms responded to the SEC’s 2020 amendment of Regulation S-K Ite
 m 103. Item 103 of Regulation S-K prescribes how firms must disclose legal
  proceedings. The SEC amended the disclosure to address firms’ low disclos
 ure rate of environmental legal proceedings. The SEC argued that by loweri
 ng compliance costs\, the amendment would increase the disclosure rate of 
 environmental legal proceedings. To achieve its goals\, the SEC increases 
 the minimum threshold for environmental legal proceedings and replaces a s
 ole bright-line disclosure threshold with a hybrid regime that permits fir
 ms to use a higher\, firm-specific threshold. I document three main findin
 gs. First\, using textual analysis methods\, I find that firms increase th
 eir disclosure of environmental legal proceedings after the regulation cha
 nge. Unique to this setting\, I then isolate the effect cross-sectionally 
 using penalty amounts. Cases with penalties between $300\,000 and $1 milli
 on are more likely to be disclosed after the SEC mandate. Cases with penal
 ties between $100\,000 and $300\,000 are less likely to be disclosed\, as 
 these amounts fall below the amended threshold. I also find that firms dis
 close environmental legal proceedings earlier following the mandate. I als
 o test for this effect cross-sectionally among penalty amounts and find th
 at cases between $300\,000 and $1 million are more likely to be disclosed 
 earlier. Second\, firms respond heterogeneously to this new threshold-disc
 losure regime. Some firms react to the new hybrid approach by disclosing h
 igher firm-specific thresholds\, while others use the new rule as a volunt
 ary disclosure channel to disclose that they are retaining the minimum thr
 eshold rather than increasing it. Consistent with a high fixed-cost model 
 of disclosure\, threshold disclosures are bimodal\, with firms disclosing 
 either the minimum or maximum thresholds. Firms with current environmental
  violations are more likely to increase the threshold\, whereas firms with
  higher proprietary costs are less likely to do so. Third\, I leverage the
  methodology of Christensen et al. (2017) to examine the real effects of d
 isclosing environmental violations in financial filings following the mand
 ate. Comparing firms that disclose environmental violations against firms 
 that do not\, I document that disclosing environmental legal proceedings i
 n financial reports after the mandate decreases future environmental viola
 tions. I also find that the intensity of disclosure matters\, as firms tha
 t have a higher intensity of disclosure of environmental legal proceedings
  experience a larger decrease in future violations. Overall\, my findings 
 suggest that the SEC’s 2020 amendment of Regulation S-K Item 103 successfu
 lly increases the disclosure of environmental legal proceedings and has re
 al effects on firms’ environmental performance.\n
DTSTART:20260521T150000Z
DTEND:20260521T170000Z
SUMMARY:PhD Thesis Defense Presentation: Tomas Milo
URL:/desautels/channels/event/phd-thesis-defense-prese
 ntation-tomas-milo-372965
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR