Search results

The composition of bank liabilities has captured a lot of attention especially after the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. It is argued that a compositional change in non-core liabilities reflects the different stages of financial cycle. Banks usually fund their credits with core liabilities, which grow with households’ wealth, but when there is a faster growth in credits compared to deposits, the banks often resort to non-core liabilities to meet the excess demand for loans. This chapter analyses the relationship between non-core liabilities and credits in a small open economy, namely Turkey. It investigates the relationship under alternative settings and presents consistent evidence on a robust relationship between credits and non-core liabilities under all frameworks. The study also verifies that elevated demand for credit may induce some increase in non-core liabilities. Finally, the relationship between non-core liabilities and credit growth is also affirmed in the long run.

This chapter focuses on the IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and IFRS 16 Leases in the airline industry considering the case of Air France – KLM (AF-KLM). This airline timely adopted IFRS 15 and early adopted IFRS 16 for the year 2018 and restated its 2017 financial statements using the full retrospective method so that the 2018 financial statements of the airline provide comparative financial information during the transition phase from IAS 18 to IFRS 15 as well as from IAS 17 to IFRS 16. In the first part of the chapter, liquidity, solvency, and profitability ratios along with cash flow ratios were used to analyze the cumulative effect of IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 using 2017 and restated 2017 financial statements. In this context, results indicate that the liquidity ratios decreased, and the solvency ratios increased in general. In addition, the cumulative effect of IFRS 15 and IFRS 16 created an upward change in general on profitability ratios based on the several performance parameters that should be considered during the transition from IAS 18 to IFRS 15 and from IAS 17 to IFRS 16. Overall, IFRS 15 has minor effect and IFRS 16 has major effect on the financial statements of AF-KLM. In the second part of the chapter, the compliance level of the mandatory disclosures requirements of the airline was examined from the lessee standpoint and the research pointed out that the airline fully complied with these disclosures at its first adoption of IFRS 16 and provided some voluntary disclosures as well.

This study investigates whether CEOs exercise discretion in recognizing environmental liabilities surrounding their turnover. Extant theories on the agency problem predict that outgoing CEOs tend to boost or maintain the reported earnings in their final years (“Horizon” problem or “Cover-up”) and incoming CEOs sacrifice the reported earnings in their transitions year (“big-bath”). We find empirical evidence that incoming CEOs recognize significantly higher environmental liabilities in their transition year compared to the following years, supporting the “big-bath” hypothesis. This finding provides evidence that CEOs use environmental liabilities as a tool of earnings management surrounding their turnover in an attempt to maximize their accounting-based compensation.

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.

The question is whether debt market investors see through managers' attempts to hide their pension obligations. The authors establish a robust relation between understated pension liabilities and corporate bond yield spreads after controlling for factors that have been previously identified as having a significant impact on firms' cost of borrowing. The results support the idea that bond market investors are not being misled by the use of high pension liability discount rates by some companies to lower their reported pension obligations. For a small fraction of debt issuers, the reported pension liabilities are larger than the pension liabilities valued at the stipulated interest rate benchmarks. For these issuers with overstated pension liabilities, bond investors adjust their borrowing costs downward.

The authors investigate the relation between corporate bond yield spreads and understated pension liabilities relative to long-term Treasury and high-grade corporate bond yields. They aim to answer two questions. First, what are the sizes of over or understated pension liabilities relative to guideline benchmarks? Second, do debt market investors see through the potential management manipulation of pension discount rates? The authors find that firms with large understated pension liabilities face higher marginal borrowing costs after taking into account issue-specific features, firm characteristics, macroeconomic conditions and other pension information such as funded status and mandatory contributions.

The average understated projected benefit obligations (PBOs) are understated by $394.3 and $335.6, equivalent to 3.5 and 3.0% of the beginning of the fiscal year market value, respectively. The average understated accumulated benefit obligations (ABOs) are understated by $359.3 and $305.3 million, equivalent to 3.1 and 2.6%, of the beginning of the fiscal year market value, respectively. Relative to AA-grade corporate bond yields, the average difference between firm pension discount rates and benchmark yields becomes much smaller; the percentage of firm pension discount rates higher than benchmark yields is also much smaller. As a result, understated pension liabilities become negligible. The authors establish a robust relation between corporate bond yield spreads and measures of understated pension liabilities after controlling for issue-specific features, firm characteristics, other pension information (funded status and mandatory contributions), macroeconomic conditions, calendar effects and industry effects.

S&P Rating Services recognizes the issue that there is considerably more variability in discount rate assumptions among companies than in workforce demographics or the interest rate environment in which firms operate (Standard and Poor's, 2006). S&P also indicates that it would be desirable to normalize different discount rate assumptions but acknowledges that it is difficult to do so. In practice, S&P Rating Services conducts periodic surveys to see whether firms' assumed discount rates conform to the normal standard. The paper makes an initial attempt to quantify the size of understated pension liabilities and their impact on corporate bond yield spreads. This approach can be extended to study firms' costs of equity capital, the pricing of seasoned equity offerings and the pricing of merger and acquisition transaction deals, among other questions.

This paper aims to examine pricing differences regarding contingencies presented in statements of financial position or notes, which are considered an area for creative accounting.

The authors have chosen two countries with different cultural environments to test the exploratory study. The sample includes companies using the International Accounting Standard (IAS) 37, which requires recognition of provisions while contingent liabilities are only disclosed, implying different impacts from underlying judgement related with contingencies. The authors apply a regression model based on the Ohlson equity-valuation framework.

The most important conclusion is that market participants in both countries follow different patterns when incorporating information about provisions and contingent liabilities. More precisely, the results suggest that provisions are value-relevant, but incrementally less negative in Portugal. Contingent liabilities seem to have no value relevance. However, an exception exists for Portuguese companies having a risk committee board, in which case a significant market valuation of contingent liabilities is found and discounted in share prices. The existence of a risk committee corroborates the value relevance of this board, which is positively valued by market participants in both national cultures.

The findings may make a contribution to the IASB research project on the IAS 37 and possible amendments to it (suspended until the revisions to the conceptual framework are finalized) and to the IASB prioritization of communication effectiveness of financial statements to all users.

Value relevance of contingencies differentiating countries from two different national cultures and firms with a risk committee on the board of directors.

This research examines the likelihood that Panamanian and Colombian banks listed on their respective stock exchanges voluntarily disclose intangible liabilities based on such variables as their size, profitability, indebtedness, age and growth. The presented findings concur with agency theory, signalling theory and the owner-cost theory.

The authors propose a probabilistic model to test the influence of size, profitability, indebtedness, age and growth on the disclosure of intangible liabilities. The dependent variable, the disclosure index, was constructed from a dichotomous approach using Harvey and Lusch's (1999) model, which has 24 characteristics, plus six that we added in our research. These were grouped into four categories: procedures, human activity, information and organisational structure.

Banks in Panama and Colombia with a larger size, higher profitability, lower age and higher growth are more likely to disclose more information about their intangible liabilities. However, indebtedness does not serve as a determinant of the disclosure of these liabilities, even though its relationship is negative.

The limitation of the research was the voluntary disclosure of information about these liabilities on firms' websites.

The contributions of this research are as follows. First, we used an intangible asset disclosure methodology to verify the disclosure of intangible liabilities, in line with Harvey and Lusch's model, as well as providing another six indicators, thereby producing an extended model. Second, being the first empirical research to study the disclosure of intangible liabilities in Panama and Colombia opens a door to future research on this topic.

This research provides a significant practical contribution to society because banks listed on public stock markets, understanding that undisclosed intangible liabilities lead to opportunity costs in their profitability, might tend to disclose more information, thus promoting greater transparency in the market.

The main contribution of this research is applying an intangible asset disclosure methodology to the disclosure of intangible liabilities, following Harvey and Lusch's (1999) model, as well as the creation of an expanded model.

The purpose of this paper is primarily to explore the extent of intangible assets and liabilities of large Malaysian companies. The authors also examine whether intangible assets and liabilities of a firm have similar or contrasting roles in firm performance.

Using a direct and straightforward measure of intangible assets and liabilities, the authors examine a large pool of data from large Malaysian companies over a six-year period spanning from 2008 to 2013.

The longitudinal analyses show a significant number of the sample companies, between 34 and 59.33 percent, have a consistent pattern of intangible liabilities. The authors also find firms with intangible liabilities have significantly underperformed financially than a control group of firms. In addition, the authors find that intangible liabilities have significant negative impact on firm performance whereas intangible assets have a contrasting positive impact on firm performance.

One limitation of this study is that the authors have only used a single measure of intangible assets and liabilities. Albeit the measures used are straightforward and more objective, there could be other measures to capture intangibles.

The research findings have several theoretical as well as policy implications. Theoretically, the authors extend the resource-based view to the intangible asset-liability mix, affirming the crucial role of intangible resources in financial performance whilst introducing the unfavorable role of intangible liabilities in corporate financial performance. In terms of policy implications, the research findings provide initial empirical input to emerging calls for broader perspectives of intangibles, beyond intangible assets to include intangible liabilities, and therefore belong to an emerging paradigm toward the nature of intangibles.

This study documents a rare empirical account of the contrasting roles of intangible assets and liabilities in corporate financial performance.

Most models of intellectual capital measurment equal intellectual capital with intellectual assets. Nevertheless, companies sometimes must incur liabilities to make intellectual assets truly actionable. This fact suggests the existence of intangible liabilities. The aim of this paper is to refine the methods of assessment of intellectual capital by refining and extending the concept of intangible liabilities.

The paper consists of a literature review of prior conceptualisations of intangible liabilities, and an empirical exploration of the employer‐employee relationships that can originate intangible liabilities.

The results of the empirical research show that a non‐fulfilment of perceived obligations by the company might cause organisational members to refrain from deploying their organisational knowledge in organisational processes. Thus, these obligations can be conceptualised as intangible liabilities.

The research has only explored intangible liabilities related to organisational members. Future research should explore the intangible liabilities that an organisation can incur with other constituencies, e.g. suppliers and clients.

Managers can improve their models of intellectual capital measurement taking into account not only the intangible assets, but also the intangible liabilities. Taking into account intangible liabilities should bring awareness of the conditions that might hinder the deployment of organisational knowledge.

The study brings a more refined, theoretically‐ and empirically‐based conceptualisation of intangible liabilities than those provided so far, aiding to develop a more robust theory of intellectual capital measurement.