Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the association between audit committee expertise and asymmetric information in the US equity market.

The authors use measures of information asymmetry for 705 US firms (5,260 firm-year observations) over the period from 2007 to 2018, and use the theory of expertise (Ericsson and Smith, 1991) to examine the association between audit committee financial expertise and information asymmetry. The authors use multiple econometric approaches such as firm fixed-effect regression and two-stage ordinary least squares regression to control for possible endogeneity and reverse causality and find that the results remain the same.

The authors find that the existence of an audit committee with financial expertise is negatively and significantly associated with information asymmetry. The authors further provide empirical evidence through which audit committee financial expertise affects the firm’s informational environment. Additional analysis supports the argument that the audit committee’s financial expertise enhances the firm’s informational environment by increasing (decreasing) analyst following (dispersion).

One limitation to consider, like most studies on audit committees, is that the authors do not examine the actual role performed by the audit committee. The authors focus on the characteristics stipulated by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act 2002 and stock exchange rules regarding the financial expertise of audit committee members only.

This study is useful to policy makers, standard setters, investors, activists, managers, lenders and various stakeholders who rely on the financial statements of firms with an expert audit committee on board. The outcome of this study promotes recruiting audit committees with financial expertise due to the assumed benefits of this trait to the US firm.

The results of this study are not event-dependent and therefore have persistent effects, which is important to the evaluation of the usefulness of a regulation. This study promotes recruiting audit committees with financial expertise on boards because of the assumed benefits to the firm and investors.

This study is the first to document that financial expertise of audit committee characteristics is not only negatively related to the magnitude of information asymmetry but also driven by the financial expertise of audit committee members rather than chairs.

This study investigates and compares the earnings management strategies of financially distressed and non-distressed banks.

Using a regression analysis, this study examines a sample of banks operating in the MENA region. We focus on real earnings management strategies via commission and fee income (CF) and accrual-based earnings management strategies via loan loss provisions (LLP). A subsample analysis was performed, lagged dependent variables and additional control variables were included as a robustness check.

The findings consistently reveal a more extensive use of real earnings management strategies via CF among distressed banks than among non-distressed ones. Specifically, banks smooth their income via CF under distress conditions. However, LLP-based earnings management strategies are only implemented in healthy banks. These behaviors persist in banks that operate under different monitoring systems and institutional settings.

This study marks its entry into the literature debate on accounting and non-accounting decisions that influence bank financial reporting. It argues that, in the presence of financial difficulties, bank managers define earnings management strategies based on the probability of being detected, rather than looking at their costs.

From a prudential perspective, the findings suggest the need for prudential rules to supervise the reporting of CF income associated with high fees or discount incentives used intentionally by bank managers to convince clients to delay or accelerate payments and, consequently, affect reported earnings.

This study adds to the literature by investigating the effect of bank financial distress on both real and accrual-based earnings management to provide a comprehensive analysis of bank earnings management strategies in the presence of financial difficulties.

This paper aims to examine how managers make non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) exclusion decisions depending on the regulatory guidance provided and their motivations. Guidance detail is a double-edged sword: resolving uncertainty but risking rule-based compliance over principled judgment.

This paper uses the context of non-GAAP measures in reporting, given the history of Securities and Exchange Commission changes in guidance detail. Drawing on theories of epistemic motivation and process accountability, this paper manipulates the goal of management (informativeness vs. opportunism) and guidance detail to examine effects on management decisions to exclude an ambiguous charge.

The 2×2 between participants experiment with 132 managers reveals that more detailed guidance increases likelihood of exclusion of an ambiguous charge. This paper further finds that this exclusion is more likely when management is given an informativeness goal, a result of a mediating effect of epistemic motivation. However, these findings only hold at low levels of process accountability.

The findings regarding the psychological concepts recognize the influence of perceived decision uncertainty by suggesting how managers respond to the level of regulatory guidance detail, offering regulators and auditors a basis for understanding and anticipating managerial reporting choices. Also, awareness of heightened epistemic motivation under the informativeness goal provides a nuanced practical understanding of non-GAAP decision drivers. Finally, the finding that effects are more pronounced for managers with lower process accountability highlights the significance of organizational accountability structures in guiding managerial choices, which can inform board-level governance and control decisions.

Pragmatically, this paper finds that detailed guidance leads to more appropriate exclusion decisions under a goal of informativeness but finds no such evidence where the goal is opportunism. No prior study has examined how the level of detail in guidance affects managers’ disclosure choices.

This paper aims to examine the association between perceived firm risk and two reporting mechanisms: risk disclosure and earnings smoothing in the UK context.

This study juxtaposes three competing views, the “null”, the “divergence” and the “convergence” hypotheses, and empirically investigates whether risk disclosure and earnings smoothing affect firm perceived risk for a sample of large UK firms with rich and poor information environments. This study also uses the global financial crisis as an external shock on overall risk in the economy to investigate when and how managers use these two reporting mechanisms to shape the firm perceived risk.

This paper documents that risk disclosures have no significant effect on investors’ risk perceptions, consistent with risk disclosures containing boilerplate and generic statements about firm risk. This paper also finds that earnings smoothing reduces investors’ risk perceptions, reflecting investors’ interpretations about future firm performance. Additional tests reveal that earnings smoothing is not associated with perceived firm risk for firms with rich information environments and expanded risk disclosures. Furthermore, reporting smooth earnings decreases perceived firm risk following the global financial crisis. These findings are robust to alternative specifications and measures of earnings smoothing as well as post-filing perceived firm risk.

This study does not distinguish between the garbling role and the informational role of earnings smoothing. The risk disclosure measurement used in this study, developed based on UK annual reports, may limit the generalizability of findings to other countries.

The findings suggest that managers should revise their risk disclosure strategies to provide in-depth details on firm risk. Investors might require information and thorough assessment to evaluate investment risks when firms provide generic risk disclosures and smoothed earnings by consulting sources like financial intermediaries. Regulators should keep an eye on firms reporting boilerplate risk disclosures and on how smoothing earnings impacts the firm perceived risk following economic turmoil, to guide interventions that promote market stability.

The findings provide new insights into when and how managers use their financial reporting discretion to make firms appear less risky and, therefore, influence investors’ risk perceptions.

This article aims to evaluate the informativeness of accruals on stock prices. Investors may misinterpret the information contained in accruals and produce accrual anomalies. Accruals accounting improves the quality of financial statements by providing useful information, although it also contains judgments and is less objective than operating cash-flows.

We employ data panel regression analysis to investigate the value relevance of financial information. Our study takes the object of companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange (NASDAQ) as the representative of the prominent stock exchange for technology-driven enterprises and entrepreneurs. Expanding the findings, we also use Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) data.

Our research finds that accruals are still relevant. However, firms with R&D expenditures reduce the ability of accruals to explain stock prices for non-technology firms and firms without intangible assets. After analyzing only tech firms (and firms with intangible assets), our tests show that R&D expenditures improve the relevancy of accruals. These findings apply to both Nasdaq and SSE.

Practitioners and the investment community get valuable insights into how the recognition and measurement of R&D expenditures affect the value relevance. Information about R&D increases relevancy only in firms with intangible assets and those that operate in the technology industry.

Our paper provides benefits by using R&D expenses to affect accruals' informativeness by comparing two countries with different recognition of R&D.

This study examines the types, quality, and financial effects of explanations for non-compliance (NCEs) with corporate governance codes.

This study used content analysis to examine various types of NCEs and developed an NCE index (NCEI) to assess their quality and degree of informativeness. Static and dynamic multivariate panel data regression models were used to analyze the relationship between NCEI and firm performance (FP) of 38 non-financial listed Mauritian firms from 2009 to 2019.

Listed Mauritian firms do not provide explanations for all non-compliance, and the most common type of NCE is momentary deviation. The NCEI is 0.243, which implies that the overall quality of the NCEs is poor or uninformative. The NCEI varies according to the listing status and industry type. NCEI has a negative and insignificant relationship with both ROA and Tobin’s Q. The results are inconsistent with the agency, stakeholder, stewardship, and resource dependency theories. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the findings were robust.

Multiple theoretical frameworks offer a deeper understanding of corporate governance practices than a single theory does. A decline in the NCEI in 2019 indicates that the move from the “comply or explain” to the “apply or explain” principle does not necessarily result in enhancements in the degree of informativeness. Regulators should develop guidelines on how to disclose NCEs better. Investors appear to be more concerned about “comply/apply or perform” than the “comply/apply or explain” approach.

This study adds to the extant literature by providing new evidence on the types and quality of NCEs as well as their relationship with FP in emerging economies, where such studies are rare.

This paper is motivated by the ongoing debate on the value relevance of cash flow statement (CFS) between bank regulators, on one hand, and accounting standard setters, on the other hand. The importance and usefulness of cash flows during economic turmoil exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic has recently gained attention. Hence, this paper investigates the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the value relevance of cash flows (CF) beyond accounting earnings and book equity.

A panel of 236 bank-year observations is examined for value relevance in emerging capital markets of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Using value relevance regression, operating and non-operating CF items are tested for value relevance beyond earnings and book value of equity during the periods 2018–2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020–2021 (pandemic).

There is limited value relevance of CF beyond accounting earnings and the book value of equity. The distinction between operating and non-operating CF is not informative. However, the value relevance is significant during the pandemic, indicating that investors rely on CF for valuation purposes at times of uncertainty, corroborating further research on CF distress predictive ability.

This paper provides novel evidence on value relevance of CF and its superiority to accounting earnings and equity values during times of uncertainty. It extends a small body of research in the banking sector in emerging markets. Hence, it complements prior literature and has practical implications to accounting standard setters and bank regulators in emerging markets.

Prior studies generally focus on income smoothing through discretionary accruals and document that managers have incentives to smooth earnings due to various reasons. This paper aims to focus on income smoothing through research and development (R&D) management and examine whether and how income smoothing through R&D management affects credit rating agencies’ perception of firm risk.

The authors use financial statement data from the CRSP/Compustat Merged data set universe for the period from 1992 to 2019 after excluding financial and utility industries. The authors follow the model for credit ratings used in previous literature to test the hypothesis. Specifically, the authors use an ordered probit model to express credit ratings as a function of income smoothing attributes.

The authors find that R&D-based income smoothing improves a firm’s credit rating. However, the positive effect of R&D-based income smoothing on credit ratings is less than that of accruals-based income smoothing. This study also shows that the positive effect of R&D-based income smoothing is more pronounced for firms less subject to opportunistic incentives, further strengthening the notion that managers smooth earnings through R&D management to provide more informative earnings.

This study contributes to the income smoothing literature in several ways. First, the authors contribute to the research by showing that managers’ income smoothing activity through R&D management positively affects firms’ credit rating. Second, the authors also document the relative benefits of the two different income smoothing techniques in terms of improving credit agencies’ perception of firms’ creditworthiness.

This study aims at examining the value relevance of tax-related information in Canada. Tax-related information in this study includes taxable income, tax aggressiveness, and tax risk (i.e., unsustainable tax planning).

This study analyzes the Canadian listed firms covering the period of 2012–2021 using the Feltham–Ohlson valuation model.

The findings are: (1) taxable income provides incremental value relevance information; (2) tax risk reduces the value relevance of both taxable income and accounting income and (3) tax aggressiveness reduces the value relevance of accounting income but not of taxable income. Further tests show that the COVID-19 pandemic increases the value relevance of taxable income but decreases the value relevance of accounting income. An analysis of the association between stock price volatility and tax-related information documents that taxable income and accounting income are both informative. Tax risk reduces the informativeness of taxable income, but tax aggressiveness and the pandemic do not.

The sample in this study covers the period up to 2021. Future research could use more recent data. Additionally, this study examines the Canadian setting. The results may not be generalized to other countries that have different accounting and tax rules.

This study sheds light on whether tax aggressiveness and tax risk affect the value relevance of taxable income and accounting income separately. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first study that examines whether tax-related information is informative about stock price volatility.

This study aims to examine the association between fair value accounting and the cost of corporate bonds, proxied by bond yield spread. In addition, this study explores the moderating role of auditor industry expertise at both the national and the city levels.

This study first examines the effect of the use of fair value on yield spread by estimating firm-level regression model, where fair value is the testing variable and yield spread is the dependent variable. To test the differential impact of the three levels of fair value inputs, this paper divides the fair value measures based on the three-level hierarchy, Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3, and replace them as the test variables in the regression model.

This study finds that the application of fair value accounting is generally associated with a higher bond yield spread, primarily driven by Level 3 estimates. The results also show that national-level auditor industry expertise is associated with lower bond yield spreads for Level 1 and Level 3 fair value inputs, whereas the impact of city-level auditor industry expertise on bondholders is mainly on Level 3 fair value inputs.

The paper innovates by exploring the impact of fair value accounting in a setting that extends beyond financial institutions, the traditional area of focus. Moreover, most prior research considers private debt, whereas this study examines public bonds, for which investors are more likely to rely on financial reporting for their information about a firm. Finally, the study differentiates between city- and national-level industry expertise in examining the role of auditors.

This research has several practical implications. First, firms seeking to raise debt capital should consider involving auditors, with either industry expertise or fair value expertise, due to the roles that auditors play in safeguarding the reliability of fair value measures, particularly for Level 3 measurements. Second, from standard-setting and regulatory perspectives, the study’s findings that fair value accounting is associated with higher bond yield spread cast further doubt on the net benefits of applying a full fair value accounting regime. Third, PCAOB may consider enhancing guidance to auditors on Level 2 fair value inputs, to further enhance audit quality. Finally, creditors can be more cautious in interpretating accounting information based on fair value while viewing the employment of auditor experts as a positive signal.

First, the paper extends research on the role of accounting information in public debt contracting. Second, this study adds to the auditing literature about the impact of industry expertise. Finally, and more generally, this study adds to the ongoing controversy on the application of fair value accounting.