Search results

Although the value effect is comprehensively investigated in developed markets, the number of studies examining the Vietnamese stock market is limited. Hence, the first aim of this research is to provide empirical evidence regarding returns on value and growth stocks in Vietnam. The second aim is to explain abnormal returns on Vietnamese growth and value stocks using both risk-based and behavioral points of view.

From the risk-based explanation, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Fama–French three- and five-factor models are estimated. From the behavioral explanation, to construct the mispricing factor, this paper relies on the method of Rhodes-Kropf et al. (2005), one of the most popular mispricing estimations in the financial literature with numerous citations (Jaffe et al., 2020).

While the CAPM and Fama–French multifactor models cannot capture returns on growth and value stocks, a three-factor model with the mispricing factor has done an excellent job in explaining their returns. Three out of four Fama–French mimic factors do not contain additional information on expected returns. Their risk premiums are also statistically insignificant according to the Fama–MacBeth second-stage regression. By contrast, both robustness tests prove the explanatory power of a three-factor model with mispricing. Taken together, mispricing plays an essential role in explaining returns on Vietnamese growth and value stocks, consistent with the behavioral point of view.

There are several value-enhancing aspects in the field of market finance. First, this paper contributes to the literature of value effect in emerging markets. While the evidence of value effect is obvious in numerous developed as well as international markets, both growth and value effects are discovered in Vietnam. Second, the explanatory power of Fama–French multifactor models is evaluated in the Vietnamese context. Finally, to the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first paper that incorporates the mispricing estimation of Rhodes-Kropf et al. (2005) into the asset pricing model in Vietnam.

Despite the widespread prevalence of share pledging by Indian promoters, this area remains out of the researchers’ purview. This study aims to bridge this research gap by delineating the impact of promoter share pledging on future stock price crash risk and financial performance in India.

A sample of 257 companies listed on the Standard and Poor’s Bombay Stock Exchange 500 (S&P BSE 500) Index has been analysed using panel (fixed-effects) data regression methodology over 2011–2020. Further, alternative proxies for crash risk and financial performance are adopted to ensure that the study’s initial findings are robust. Finally, the instrumental variable with the two-stage least squares (IV-2SLS) method has also been employed to alleviate endogeneity concerns.

The results suggest a significantly positive relationship between promoter share pledging and future stock price crash risk in India. Conversely, this association is significantly negative for future financial performance. Moreover, the results hold, even after including alternative proxies of stock price crash risk and financial performance and addressing endogeneity concerns.

Owing to the sizeable equity shareholdings of the promoters, share pledging has remained a lucrative source of finance in India. Despite the popularity, the findings of this study question the relevance of share pledging by Indian promoters considering its impact on aggravating future stock price crash risk and deteriorating future financial performance.

This paper aims to document the impact of shadow banking on non-performing loans (NPLs) of publicly listed banks in an international setting.

This paper uses the data from 27 countries and various estimation strategies to test the arguments presented in this paper. The sample covers the period between 2002 and 2020.

The empirical results suggest that banks headquartered in countries with high shadow banking activity have fewer NPLs than otherwise similar banks headquartered in countries with low shadow banking activity. The findings remain qualitatively the same in different sub-samples and after replacing the main variables with their alternate proxies. The paper also shows that this relationship is sensitive to bank-specific characteristics. Moreover, the paper also indicates that the stringency of banking regulations weakens the relationship between shadow banking and NPLs.

The study’s data limitations prevent a detailed year-by-year analysis of NPLs and shadow banking, restricting insights into their evolving dynamics. In addition, the focus on country-level shadow banking data limits the exploration of how multinational banks’ activities in various jurisdictions impact individual banks’ NPLs.

The paper not only documents the effect of shadow banking on NPLs but also shows that the relationship between shadow banking and NPLs weakens as banking regulations become more stringent.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between CEOs' inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and the operating leverage of the firms they manage, with the aim to examine whether CEO incentives play a role in corporate risk-taking.

The authors investigate the relation between CEO inside debt holdings (CIDH) (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and the operating leverage (DOL) of the firms they manage. Using a sample of 11,145 US firm-year observations over the period 2006–2017, the authors find a strong negative association between CIDH and DOL. Additional analyses reveal that the relationship between CIDH and DOL is more pronounced in firms with heightened agency issues, powerful CEOs and for CEOs with stronger professional networks. The results are robust to various sensitivity and endogeneity tests.

The authors find strong evidence confirming the expected negative association between CEO inside debt and DOL suggesting that firms with higher inside debt tend to maintain lower levels of operating leverage. These findings continue to hold with the alternative measure for the inside debt and operating leverage, and across a range of tests designed to rule out the possibility that the primary findings are in any way driven by potential endogeneity. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the presence of manager-shareholder agency conflicts can strengthen the inside debt–DOL relationship suggesting the strong role of inside debt in reducing firm risk.

Findings in this paper have implications for design of compensation structures so that corporate boards can establish incentives as a tool for risk management. A limitation of this study is that it is focused on one market, i.e. US listed companies, so the findings may not be applicable on a global scale.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that links firm-level management of operating leverage through design of CEO inside debt incentives (two obvious choices for risk-reduction at the CEOs’ disposal include reducing financial risk through reduction of firm leverage and reducing operating risk through reduction of operating leverage). While use of firm leverage as an instrument of choice has been explored in the past, use of operating leverage to achieve risk reduction when CEO possess high inside holding, has received very little attention.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.