We investigate the effects of bank power, block ownership and board independence on the likelihood of financial distress. Using a matched sample design, we find that firms in which banks have power are more likely than their counterparts to enter financial distress. However, the bank power effects are moderated by block ownership and board independence. Specifically, on the one hand, financial distress due to bank power is lower for firms with greater ownership by pressure resistant blockholders and such blockholders appear to be the largest blockholder in the firm. The bank power effects are also lower in firms with greater outside directors and this appears to be primarily driven by proprietary directors than independent directors. On the other, we document evidence suggesting that the bank power effects are magnified for firms in which the board chair is a proprietary director aligned to non-financial blockholders or CEO/Chair, suggesting that banks might partly influence decisions via board chairs. Overall, the findings are consistent with bank power actions being detrimental to the firm, but the extent to which such actions harm the firm depends on the monitoring intentions of blockholders and/or board of directors. These findings have important implications for policymakers.

We examine the value relevance of inflation-adjusted (IA) and historical cost (HC) amounts in a hyperinflationary economy. Using a unique dataset drawn from annual reports of firms listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange from 2000 to 2005, we find that both sets of amounts are value relevant but HC amounts are superior to IA amounts. We also show that inflation gains and losses provide incremental information content beyond that provided by the HC amounts and that the power of this incremental content model is equivalent to that of the HC model but superior to that of the IA model. Further analyses indicate that, in periods of relatively low inflation, HC amounts are more value relevant, while in periods of relatively high inflation, the two sets of amounts are equally value relevant. Finally, we show that HC amounts have a greater ability to predict future cash flows than IA amounts, which suggests that the superiority of their value relevance stems from this.