Search results

We examine whether the social capital of the area where a firm’s headquarters is located affects that firm’s credit rating. Given that credit rating agencies only infrequently visit a firm’s headquarters, it is pertinent to investigate whether this soft information is considered.

In order to test whether social capital affects firms’ credit ratings, we estimate the following model using an ordinary least squares regression: Rating_it = β₀ + β₁ Social Capital_it + ∑ Controls_it + Industry fixed Effects_i + State−year fixed effects_it + ε_it. We follow recent accounting and finance research and measure societal-level social capital at the county level (Jha & Chen, 2015; Cheng et al., 2017; Hasan et al., 2017a, b; Jha, 2017; Hossain et al., 2023). We use four inputs to calculate social capital: (1) voter turnout in presidential elections, (2) the census response rate, (3) the number of social and civic associations and (4) the number of nongovernmental organizations in each county.

W provide evidence that social capital has a causal effect on credit ratings. Interesting is that this effect is not merely localized to firms near credit rating agencies. We also find that the effect of social capital on credit ratings is concentrated among firms with moderate levels of default risk. For firms with extremely low or extremely high default risk, social capital appears irrelevant to credit ratings, suggesting that social capital plays a larger role in more ambiguous contexts or when greater judgment is required. We demonstrate that the effect of social capital on credit ratings disappears when the rating agency has extensive experience in a particular region. This result is consistent with rating agencies stereotyping certain regions of the USA and using that information to inform their ratings when they have less experience in the region. Finally, we find that while social capital is associated with credit ratings, it has no association with future defaults.

Though we cautiously followed prior studies and were confident in our data construction process, it is possible that we are measuring social capital with error.

Our findings suggest that credit rating agencies could benefit from reevaluating how they incorporate non-financial information, such as social capital, into their assessment processes, potentially leading to more nuanced and equitable credit ratings. Additionally, firms could use these insights to bolster their engagement with local communities and stakeholders, thereby enhancing their creditworthiness and attractiveness to investors as part of a broader corporate strategy. The findings also underline the need for regulatory frameworks that foster transparency and the inclusion of social factors in credit evaluations, which could lead to more comprehensive and fair financial reporting and rating systems.

Recognizing that social capital can influence economic outcomes like credit ratings may encourage both communities and firms to invest more in building and maintaining social networks, trust and civic engagement. By demonstrating how social capital impacts credit ratings, our research highlights the potential to address inequalities faced by regions with lower social capital, guiding targeted social and economic development initiatives. Moreover, understanding that regional social capital can influence credit ratings might affect public perception and trust in the impartiality and accuracy of these ratings, which is essential for maintaining market stability and integrity.

Our research provides fresh insights into how social capital, an intangible asset, influences credit ratings – a topic not extensively explored in existing literature. This sheds light on the dynamics between social structures and financial outcomes. Methodologically, our use of the 9/11 attacks as an exogenous shock to measure changes in social capital introduces a novel approach to study similar phenomena. Additionally, our findings contrast with prior studies such as Jha and Chen (2015) and Hossain et al. (2023), by delving deeper into how proximity and familiarity impact financial assessments differently, enriching academic discourse and refining existing theories on the role of local knowledge in financial decisions.

This paper empirically examines whether the order of liability and preferred stock accounts presented on the balance sheet is consistent with how the stock market values their riskiness.

This paper measures a firm’s riskiness with idiosyncratic risk and employs the first-difference design to test the relation between idiosyncratic risk and the order of current liabilities, noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock, respectively. Further, the paper tests whether operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors partition their sample based on the degree of financial distress and investigate whether the results differ between the two subsamples.

The paper finds that current liabilities are viewed as riskier than noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock is viewed as less risky than current and noncurrent liabilities, consistent with the ordering on the balance sheet. Further, the paper finds that operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors find that total liabilities and preferred stock (redeemable and convertible classes) are viewed as riskier for distressed firms than for nondistressed firms.

The authors thoroughly investigate the riskiness of several classes of claims and document that the classification of liabilities and preferred stock classes is relevant to common stockholders for assessing their associated risk.

In response to recent concerns on earnings quality and a firm's fundamental performance, the purpose of this paper is to re‐examine salient questions under accrual accounting: how earnings quality affects the role of earnings and operating cash flows in a firm's valuation.

Using a large sample ranging from 1989 to 2008, the authors contrast the effects of three representative accrual‐based earnings quality measures on the association between earnings, operating cash flows and a firm's abnormal stock returns.

In the univariate analysis it was found that earnings explain returns similarly to operating cash flows. With control of earnings quality, the results indicate that earnings' role in explaining contemporaneous abnormal returns remains unchanged when earnings quality is better. Conversely, operating cash flows explain more contemporaneous abnormal returns when earnings quality is better. The findings could suggest that the market reacts to operating cash flows conditionally on earnings quality. Intriguingly, the results also indicate that the market perceives better earnings quality captures superior performance of operating cash flows rather than that of earnings. These findings are further fortified by additional analyses revealing that the earnings quality measure with control of operating cash flows affects the supplemental role of operating cash flows most.

The paper's findings provide insights on how the market processes firm value signals embedded in earnings quality, which have direct implications for regulators, standard setters, academics and practitioners.