Search results

We develop a credit-risk model to study the informational role of investment in an economy susceptible to large liquidity shocks. Firms' investment decisions carry information about their asset quality, thereby mitigating informational frictions when firms enter bankruptcy. An increase in aggregate investment can reduce the informational value of investment, depressing firms' recovery values. Therefore, policies boosting investment can decrease debt and firm values by reducing the informational value of investment. The presence of debt overhang may enhance firm value by making firms' investment decisions more informative. We present suggestive empirical evidence consistent with model predictions on the relation between firms' investments and recovery rates.

This study aims to examine how financial analysts evaluate other comprehensive income (OCI) information with a focus on the information content and economic substance of OCI gain and loss.

This study conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject experiment by manipulating profitability (net profit or net loss) and OCI (OCI gain or loss). A total of 103 equity research analysts participated in the experiment.

The results show that when the company suffers a net loss, the presence of unrealized gain in OCI appears to cause concern for analysts, in that they assigned a lower valuation to the OCI gain company than the OCI loss company. However, in the cases where the company is profitable, analysts appeared to respond to the direction of OCI (i.e. gain or loss) and incorporated the directional information in their valuation judgment.

The experimental results complement prior archival research on OCI valuation. This study extends prior work on OCI’s decision usefulness, improves understanding of the impact of OCI on firm valuation and contributes to the ongoing debate about whether OCI is viewed as a performance measure. The findings indicate that the effect of OCI gains or losses is most pronounced when the company experiences a loss. During such instances, analysts may interpret a combination of net loss and OCI gain as a potential indicator of earnings management opportunities. Consequently, they may perceive it as a signal of deteriorating future financial performance.

This study aims to investigate the motivations behind the issuance of financial instruments with characteristics of equity (FICE), economic consequences associated with their issuance and accounting classifications based on a value-relevance approach.

Using a sample of 169 financial and nonfinancial firms from 10 jurisdictions that adopted International Financial Reporting Standards, the authors use a difference-in-differences econometric approach.

The findings reveal that FICE issuers are more leveraged companies with higher costs of equity and, in some cases, lower effective tax rates. This evidence corroborates the hypothesis that issuers of FICEs seek to increase their book values of equity (accounting treatment as equity) and, simultaneously, generate deductible expenses for tax purposes (tax treatment as liability).

This finding suggests that market participants do not treat these instruments as regular equity but rather as quasi-equity. The findings suggest that a binary classification of FICE as debt or equity may not be the accounting treatment that best represents the underlying economic substance of these contracts. Furthermore, this study reinforces the IASB indication regarding to increase the FICE disclosure to allow stakeholders to better understand the economic essence of these bonds.

This study assesses the economic outcomes and market evaluation of a specific type of FICE that has not been previously studied, which is similar to the examples provided by the IASB in their materials on the subject.

This study aims to assess if the voluntary reporting of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), a widely used non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) measure, has effects on information asymmetry and value relevance and how the adjustments to GAAP earnings made to derive it contribute to these effects. This study focuses on firms from two countries with contrasting institutional settings, Canada and France.

Relying on multivariate analyses and using Heckman’s procedure to address the sample self-selection issue, this study first estimates the likelihood of a firm to report adjusted EBITDA. Then, this study examines if adjusted EBITDA, as well as the adjustments made to GAAP earnings to derive adjusted EBITDA (adjustments), affect a firm’s information asymmetry and its value. These adjustments are essentially GAAP-grounded items that are discarded by management to derive non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA. The dependent variables are share price volatility, as a proxy for information asymmetry, alongside market-to-book and stock market return as indicators of value.

In terms of the used sample, results suggest that Canadian firms are much more likely to report adjusted EBITDA than French firms. Chief executive officer (CEO) attributes (CEO power) appears to increase such likelihood. Moreover, for both Canadian and French firms, adjusted EBITDA is associated with reduced stock market volatility, an indication of lower information asymmetry, as well as higher market-to-book and returns, suggesting value relevance. The results also indicate that investors view the adjustments to GAAP earnings made by management to derive adjusted EBITDA as not value relevant (similar to noise). The GAAP-grounded elements that management discard to derive adjusted EBITDA actually increase information asymmetry.

This study adds to prior research on the interface between a CEO attributes and governance and non-GAAP reporting. This study also provides evidence that, despite very different institutional settings, non-GAAP reporting conveys relevant information to capital markets’ participants in both France and Canada. Hence, a country’s institutional setting may have a differential impact on the disclosure choice but not on the resulting value relevance of such disclosure. Finally, this study extends the non-GAAP literature by examining the value relevance of a widely used yet under-researched measure, adjusted EBITDA.

This study aims to study the impact of earnings quality on firms’ financial performance.

An unbalanced panel data of 237 small- and medium-sized Portuguese companies from the mold industry, using 2010–2018 yearly data was analyzed. While most studies focus only on earnings management when assessing earnings quality, in this study six proxies for earnings quality are used, namely, accruals quality (a proxy for earnings management), earnings persistence, earnings predictability, earnings smoothness, earnings timeliness and earnings conservatism. Moreover, two proxies of financial performance are considered, the return on assets and the economic value added. An econometric model was estimated using either a fixed-effects or a random-effects specification to account for the individual firm-specific effects and ensure heteroscedasticity corrected estimates.

The results show that managers must be concerned with the quality of reported earnings, as it can affect positively firms’ financial performance, especially regarding accruals quality. Persistence, predictability, smoothness, timeliness and conservatism are shown not to exert significant influence on financial performance in the sample.

This work contributes not only as a literature review on these thematic but also to firms’ managers and stakeholders, who have information that helps them select strategies that guarantee earnings quality and improve firms’ financial performance.

This study proposed an econometric model that studies the relationship between earnings quality (using several proxies for it) and financial performance that can be applied to all companies.

This paper aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the impact of market uncertainty on the degree of accuracy and bias of analysts' earnings forecasts versus four model-based earnings forecasts.

The study employs panel regression analysis on a sample of Egyptian listed companies from 2005 to 2022 to examine the impact of market uncertainty on the accuracy and bias of each type of earnings forecast.

The empirical analysis reveals that market uncertainty significantly affects analysts’ earnings forecast accuracy and bias, while model-based earnings forecasts are less affected. Furthermore, the Earnings Persistence and Residual Income model-based earnings were found to be superior in terms of exhibiting the least susceptibility to the impact of market uncertainty on their forecast accuracy and biasness levels, respectively.

The findings have important implications for stakeholders within the financial realm, including investors, financial analysts, corporate executives and portfolio managers. They emphasize the importance of considering market uncertainty when formulating earnings forecasts, while concurrently highlighting the potential benefits of using alternative forecasting methods.

To our knowledge, the influence of market uncertainty on analysts' earnings forecast accuracy and bias in the MENA region, particularly in the Egyptian market, remains unexplored in existing research. Additionally, this paper contributes to the existing literature by pinpointing the forecasting method, specifically distinguishing between analysts-based and model-based approaches, whose predictive quality is less adversely impacted by market uncertainty in an emerging market.

The research aims to provide empirical evidence on the relationship between financial statement comparability (FSC) and cost of equity (COE) in an emerging market.

Specifically, this study examines the relationship between FSC and COE of Vietnamese listed firms. The research uses the System Generalized Method of Moments regression techniques for a panel data set of 454 companies for the period 2015–2022.

The authors find that firms with high comparability of financial statements have lower COE. To confirm the research findings, the authors conduct the robustness test by using different proxies for the cost of equity. Consistent results are found.

The study contributes to the overall understanding of the relationship between FSC and COE, and suggests policy implications for relevant stakeholders such as managers, regulatory bodies and investors. Especially, regarding policymakers, this study could provide more insight into how the accounting convergence process impacts the effectiveness of a firm’s capital allocation.

This study aims to examine the effects of agency cost on auditor choice. This paper also deals with the moderating role of the board’s financial expertise (Bfe) and the status of the internal control (Intecon) system on the relationship between agency cost and auditor selection.

This study’s sample consists of 1,040 firm-year observations of Iranian nonfinancial companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2019. The information required for this research is mainly extracted from Comprehensive Database of All Listed Companies (in Iran Stock Exchange). Data from 130 companies were obtained during the research period. This study used logistic regression to test the hypotheses.

The findings indicate that companies with higher agency costs choose the auditor from lower classes. As the proportion of financial expert members on the board increases, the intensity of this relationship will be reduced. Companies with higher agency costs choose the auditor from the lower classes, but the higher the ratio of financial expert board members, the more these companies will choose high-quality auditors. However, findings showed that the status of the Intecon system has no moderating effect on the relationship between agency costs and auditor selection.

The results of this study can expand the existing literature on the relationship between auditor selection and agency costs and the factors affecting this relationship, especially the Bfe and Intecon. This research has significant suggestions for regulators, stakeholders, shareholders and analysts in emerging economies that may encounter similar contextual implications.

This paper aims to investigate whether the two dominant financial reporting regimes, US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are associated with audit pricing and audit report lags.

In 2007, the US SEC eliminated the requirement for foreign registrants to reconcile their financial statements to US GAAP from IFRS. In this post-reconciliation setting in the USA, the authors use panel ordinary least square regressions to examine a sample of foreign firms cross-listed in the USA reporting under IFRS and US domestic firms reporting under US GAAP during the fiscal year 2007–2019.

The authors find that the firms reporting under IFRS have longer audit report lags than firms reporting under US GAAP. In addition, the authors find that firms reporting under IFRS pay higher audit fees than their US GAAP counterparts. The results are robust after controlling for the firm- and country-specific characteristics as well as using propensity-score matching.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide empirical evidence that the differences between the two reporting regimes are associated with auditor behavior, possibly through additional audit efforts and audit complexity associated with auditing the principle-based IFRS relative to the rule-based US GAAP.

Press reports have indicated that firms frequently underprice restricted stock and employee stock options. I test for underpricing of stock and options.

I examined a sample of 5,333 private firm stock and option issuances between 1985 and 2017. I tested for underpricing using two approaches: assuming investors have no special market-timing ability and assuming instead they have perfect market-timing ability.

I find evidence of widespread stock and option underpricing by private firms before they go public reflecting large discounts that exceed reasonable compensation for lack of marketability. Unreported underpricing is more frequent in the last pre-IPO private equity transactions that offer the last opportunity to give such discounts before the stock is publicly traded, but the discounts are greater in the earlier pre-IPO transactions where unreported discounts are presumably tougher for the SEC to detect. Underpricing is still detected even when the actual DLOMs are tested against a benchmark that assumes investors have perfect market-timing ability.

Firms frequently underprice restricted stock and employee stock options. Firms tend to underprice stock options more frequently than restricted stock, but restricted stock tends to be priced at deeper discounts when recipients are assumed not to have any special market-timing ability.

Private firms issue restricted stock and options as incentive compensation. Lowballing the valuation transfers wealth from outside stockholders to employees/insiders. Wealth transfers take place through the issuance of equity claims to employees/insiders before firms go public. I found that more than a quarter of the DLOMs exceed the theoretical maximum by, on average, between 16% (median) and 20% (mean). This finding raises two questions worthy of investigation. First, to what extent do the frequency and magnitude of DLOMs above the theoretical maximum depend on whether a board of directors obtains an independent appraisal of a stock’s fair market value? Second, if DLOMs above the theoretical maximum are observed even when the stock is independently appraised, how do appraisers justify such large DLOMs?

The wealth transfers that take place through the issuance of equity claims to employees/insiders before firms go public benefit employees/insiders at the expense of outside shareholders.

My paper is the first to furnish evidence of widespread stock and option underpricing by private firms before they go public; demonstrate that the unreported underpricing is more frequent in the last pre-IPO private equity transactions that offer the last opportunity to give such discounts before the stock is publicly traded and show that the discounts are greater in the earlier pre-IPO transactions where unreported discounts are presumably tougher for the SEC to detect.