Would switching to timely reviews delay quarterly and annual earnings releases?

The SEC recently issued a proposal to modernize and clarify the regulatory structure of securities offerings. The proposal would allow companies to access capital markets on an almost continuous basis but would require strengthening of the role of independent accountants and other gatekeepers in the registration process. The Commission is seeking comment on whether it "should add to the proposed practices the fact than an independent accountant performed a timely review under SAS 71 of an issuer's quarterly financial information" (SEC, 1998, p. 231). This is the most recent of several proposals, made by the SEC and others, that provides incentives for companies to purchase quarter-end (timely) reviews of their quarterly data. Some managers who currently have their quarterly earnings reviewed only at year-end (retrospective reviews) argue that having a timely review would delay interim earnings releases. Proponents of timely reviews deny that this would occur, and assert that shifting certain review procedures into interim periods would decrease the time needed to release annual earnings. We estimate the quarterly and annual reporting lags that would occur if companies currently selecting retrospective reviews switched to timely reviews. Our results indicate that quarterly earnings release lags would increase, as opponents of mandatory timely review have argued. Switching to timely review would reduce annual earnings release lags only when interim earnings contain unusual components. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers,.