Search results

The paper examines contingent liabilities' effect on the firm's dividend decisions.

Fixed-effects regression and logit model results estimate the influence of contingent liabilities on firms' dividend decisions using a sample of 2,288 firm-year observations of S&P 500 firms from 2012 until 2022. Robustness checks and results from the 2SLS model further support the authors’ findings.

The results show that contingent liabilities negatively affect dividend payment decisions. This analysis further demonstrates that the stated effect of contingent liabilities on dividend decisions is more substantial for firms with financing deficits and those with above-industry-average corporate governance scores.

There needs to be more systematic conceptual reason for measuring uncertainty for firms and its influence on dividend decisions. Future research should use other measures of firm uncertainty to examine the relation of the firm's uncertainty with dividend decisions.

The authors suggest that contingent liabilities create uncertainty for future cash flows, influence a firm's agency costs and provide credible signals on a firm's prospects to the market. The findings support existing literature that measurable firm-specific variables significantly influence a firm's dividend decisions. The results are robust for an alternative explanation.

By investigating the impact of the influence of contingent liabilities on dividends, the authors extend research on dividend decisions and attempt to provide insights into a firm's dividend decisions by incorporating an off-the-balance sheet item (contingent liabilities) as a significant predictor for dividend decisions.

This study aims to investigate disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts and counter-accounts to examine whether and how accounting contributes to corporate accountability for asbestos-contaminated products.

This study uses the Goffmanesque perspective on impression management to examine instances of concealed asbestos-related liabilities in corporate accounts vis-à-vis the revealing of such liabilities in counter-accounts.

The findings show counter-accounts provide significant information on liabilities originating from the exposure of employees and consumers to asbestos. By contrast, the malleability of accounting tools enables companies to eschew accounting disclosures. While the frontstage positive performance of companies served an impression management role, their backstage concealing actions enabled companies to cover up asbestos-related liabilities. These companies used three categories of mechanisms to avoid disclosure of asbestos-related liabilities: concealing via a “cloak of competence”, impression management via epistemic work and a silent strategy of concealment frontstage with strategic reorganisation backstage.

This study has policy relevance as regulators need to consider the limits of corporate disclosures as an accountability tool. The findings may also initiate academic and practitioner conversations about accounting standards for long-term liabilities.

This study highlights the strategies companies use both frontstage and backstage to avoid disclosing asbestos-related liabilities. Through analysis of accounts and counter-accounts, this study identifies the limits of accounting as an accountability tool regarding asbestos-induced diseases and deaths.

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 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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage accounting regulators to address diversity in practice in the reporting of environmental liabilities. When Canada changed to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2011, Canadian regulators asked the IFRS Interpretations Committee to interpret whether the discount rate to value environmental liabilities should be a risk-free discount rate. Old Canadian GAAP, and current US GAAP, allow for a higher discount rate, resulting in commensurately lower liabilities. International regulators refused to address this issue expecting no diversity in practice in Canada.

The focus is on a sample of Canadian oil and gas and mining firms. These domestic industries play a major role internationally and have significant environmental liabilities. The method is empirical archival, tracking firm characteristics and discount rate choice on transition to IFRS.

There is significant diversity in practice. About one-third of the sample firms choose a higher discount rate, avoiding a major increase in environmental liabilities on transition to IFRS. The evidence suggests that these firms have relatively larger environmental liabilities and that the discount rate decision is a strategic choice.

The sample is based on one country and may only be reflecting local anomalies that have no broader implications.

Diversity in practice in accounting for environmental liabilities is not acceptable. Accounting regulators should act to create consistent and comparable reporting practice.

Firms and managers facing larger environmental liabilities can choose to minimize environmental liabilities under IFRS, while it is the general public and society at large that bear the ultimate risk.

The paper pushes forward the debate on whether recognized environmental liabilities should reflect the interests of equity investors, or if other investors and stakeholders should be taken into account.

This descriptive study shows how the government-wide financial statements can be used, with adjustments, to provide evidence on a state's fiscal sustainability. We compute “adjusted total net assets” (AdjTNA), which equals a state’s assets (not including its capital assets) minus the state's liabilities and obligations, including the UAAL for pension and OPEB not reported on the Statement of Net Assets. AdjTNA provides information about a state’s ability to sustain its current fiscal structure, given its current financial resources. Primary results suggest that 40 states have a negative AdjTNA value, with a median -$6.7 billion per state (-$5,230 per household). Sensitivity analysis suggests 48 states have a negative AdjTNA value, with a median -$20.7 billion per state (-$16,200 per household). The paper discusses the important policy implications of these results.

The paper aims to investigate the impact of financial liabilities on households’ holdings of financial assets. The debt-to-income ratio of the household sector increased from 75 per cent in 2000 to 99 per cent in 2010 in the euro area on average, and the rapid accumulation of household debt has induced the need to study how indebtedness affects the behaviour of households beyond their borrowing decisions.

The paper uses the first wave of the Household Finance and Consumption Survey from 2009-2010 covering euro area countries. The paper estimates a system of equations for households’ financial liabilities and assets, taking account of endogeneity and selection bias.

The results indicate that higher household liabilities are related to lower holdings of financial assets. The results are confirmed by a large number of robustness tests. The findings support the hypothesis that credit availability reduces precautionary savings as income shocks can be smoothed by borrowing, meaning fewer assets are held for self-insurance against consumption risk.

The results are obtained from a recession period when households faced aggregate shocks, whereas credit constraints were tighter than during good times. The implications of lower incentives to keep financial assets by indebted households is that they are actually more vulnerable to aggregate shocks, as they have fewer resources available when they are hit by a negative shock.

This is the first paper to investigate the effect of liabilities on financial assets using household level data. The paper takes a holistic view and models financial assets and liabilities jointly while controlling for endogeneity and selection bias.