The SEC looks at company disclosures in two distinct streams (there are actually more, but I'll focus on the major ones).
First, there is the review by the Division of Corporation Finance. This is routine, and happens to all companies. Selection is based on a number of characteristics, but largely based on market capitalization? Why? Because the SEC is there to protect investors, so it focuses this part of its activities on those companies where investors have the most money at risk. A company the size of Disney is reviewed every year. This review consists of SEC reviewers reading the filings in question, looking at other publicly available information about the company and its industry, and then asking questions, through a "comment letter" to the company, if the SEC decides there are sufficient questions to make a letter worthwhile. These comments can deal with accuracy of disclosures, appropriateness of accounting, compliance with legal requirements of being a public company, etc. Profit or not doesn't factor into the selection, nor the questions asked.
The second stream is an investigation by the Division of the Enforcement. This is an activity that is only undertaken if there is some credible suggestions or evidence that a problem exists, rather than just speculation or theories (For example, "Disney says that hotels are full, but the parking lots are always empty" or "McDonalds says same store sales are up, but none of my friends and relatives go there because of health concerns"). Sometimes the credible evidence of a possible problem comes from the routine comment letter process I describe in the previous paragraph. Other times from tips, other times from whistleblowers, other times from evidence that comes out of shareholder lawsuits, etc. The SEC does not screen those based on whether the company is profitable or not. However, there are probably more tips, lawsuits, and whistleblowers that comes out of the woodwork when people lose money than when people are making money. The SEC could, in response to this obvious tendency, open investigations of wildly profitable companies just on the reasonable belief that some portion of them are probably screwing around but nobody is complaining about it because everybody is making money. But that would be akin to the government investigating rich people because some of them likely got rich by nefarious methods. The SEC probably has the power to do it anyways, but that isn't the way we generally want our government to proceed.
So the SEC balances its activities. About an equal amount of resources are devoted to the regular reviews by Corp. Fin. as to investigations by Enforcement.
