Market reactions to enterprise risk management adoption, incorporation by rating agencies, and ORSA Act passage

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="" xmlns:xsi="" xsi:schemaLocation="">
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20210024283</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20210723085140.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">210722e20210501esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">7</subfield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20210029998</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Eastman, Evan M</subfield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Market reactions to enterprise risk management adoption, incorporation by rating agencies, and ORSA Act passage</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Evan M. Eastman, Jianren Xu</subfield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Prior literature on Enterprise Risk Management's (ERM) value implications focuses on costbenefit analyses of implementing an ERM program. We take a novel approach by examining the implementation dynamics and study whether the timing of firms' adoption affects ERM's value implication. We find that firms experienced positive (negative) abnormal returns when adopting ERM following (before) 2005 when Standard & Poor's (S&P) issued their ERM-related rating criteria. We also find evidence that ERM firms experienced positive abnormal market reactions to this rating criteria change by S&P but find no evidence for the following change by A.M. Best. In addition, our study documents that the market rewarded ERM adopters and penalized nonadopters after November 2011 on key dates leading to the passage of the Own Risk Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Act when there was less uncertainty regarding ultimate passage of the Act. Overall, our results imply that the capital market's view on ERM is shaped by rating agency and regulatory changes. Our findings are also consistent with the view that investors gain a greater understanding of ERM over time.</subfield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080546991</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Empresas</subfield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080551926</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Normativa</subfield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20210011108</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Riesgo</subfield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080591182</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Gerencia de riesgos</subfield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20180001611</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Xu, Jianren</subfield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077001748</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Risk management & insurance review</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Malden, MA : The American Risk and Insurance Association by Blackwell Publishing, 1999-</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">1098-1616</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">03/05/2021 Tomo 24 Número 2 - 2021 , p. 151-180</subfield>