Abstract Previous empirical research on the informativeness of earnings has focused on stockholders, and has not examined differences in earnings' informativeness for stockholders and bondholders. Because stockholders are residual claimants and bondholders are fixed claimants, the informativeness of earnings should differ for these two types of investors. When a firm's default risk is low, changes in its financial condition should be of limited relevance to bondholders, but should be relevant to stockholders. In contrast, as the likelihood of financial distress increases, stockholders' limited liability allows them to abandon the firm to the bondholders (Fischer and Verrecchia 1997). Accordingly, as a firm's default risk increases, changes in its financial condition should be increasingly important to bondholders and less important to shareholders. Because earnings provide information on firm value, the stock return‐earnings association should decrease as the firm's financial strength declines, while the bond return‐earnings association should increase. We use two measures of a firm's financial strength: the firm's bond rating and its reporting of a loss. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that the association between stock returns and changes in annual earnings decreases as bond ratings decline, while the association between bond returns and changes in annual earnings increases. These results suggest that as the company's financial condition deteriorates, earnings become less relevant for stock valuation and more relevant for bond valuation. When we partition firms based on their loss status, we find a stronger association between stock returns and annual earnings changes for firms with positive earnings (profit firms) than for firms with losses, consistent with earlier studies. In contrast, we find that the association between bond returns and earnings changes is greater for loss firms than for profit firms. These results suggest that losses reduce the informativeness of earnings for stockholders but increase informativeness for bondholders, suggesting that investors view losses as indicating increased credit risk.

This study uses a sample of 530 Texas school districts to investigate the information relevance of governmental financial statements published under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB No. 34). Specifically, we examine whether the new government-wide statements provide information relevant for assessing a government's default risk, and if this information is incremental to that provided by the governmental funds statements. GASB No. 34 requires governments to publish governmental funds statements prepared on a modified accrual basis, and government-wide statements prepared on an accrual basis. We find that GASB No. 34's Statement of Net Assets (similar to a corporation's balance sheet) provides information relevant for assessing default risk, and this information is incremental to that provided by the governmental funds statements. However, GASB No. 34's Statement of Activities (similar to a corporation's income statement) does not provide information relevant for assessing default risk. The accrual “earnings” measure is not more informative than the modified-accrual “earnings” measure. A government's modified accrual earnings measure can be thought of as a type of measure of changes in working capital. Therefore, our results are consistent with research on corporate entities that attributes the superiority of earnings over cash flows primarily to working capital accruals and not long-term accruals. For our sample of school districts, evidence suggests that total net assets from the government-wide Statement of Net Assets, along with a measure of modified-accrual “earnings” from the governmental funds statement, provide the best information for explaining default risk.