Knowledge that Transforms
To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.
Fields:
68 results
✕ Clear filters
Brokerage relationships and analyst forecasts: evidence from the protocol for broker recruiting
Auditor conservatism, audit quality, and real consequences for clients
Filing speed, information leakage, and price formation
On the validity of asymmetric timeliness measures of accounting conservatism
Do high-ability managers choose ESG projects that create shareholder value? Evidence from employee opinions
Trivialization of the bottom line and losing relevance of losses
The purpose of this article is to illustrate the growing limitations of the current methods of calculating earnings, particularly when earnings is a negative number. Earnings, presumably the most important output of a financial reporting system, is not a singular metric. It is obtained by subtracting numerous expense line items from revenues, both of which are calculated after applying a diverse, and often inconsistent, set of accounting conventions. Despite this apparent deficiency, earnings could be informative of recurring profits, if revenues are measured correctly and expenses are traced to revenues. However, both principles are increasingly violated for the cohorts of firms listed in the last 30 years, which now constitute over 80% of the set of listed firms. Revenues of recent cohorts do not capture many events that create recurring cash flows. Their operating expenses are dominated by intangible outlays that are unmatched to current revenues. As a result, newer cohorts’ profits and profit margins, especially when negative, offer little to inform future profits. Given that revenue and expense recognition rules are unlikely to change anytime soon, the current developments raise a question: Should the reporting of the summary measure of earnings be voluntary instead of mandatory?
Collusive versus coercive corporate corruption: evidence from demand-side shocks and supply-side disclosures
Other comprehensive income, its components, and analysts’ forecasts
Trust, social capital, and the bond market benefits of ESG performance
We investigate whether a firm’s social capital and the trust that it engenders are viewed favorably by bondholders. Using firms’ environmental and social (E&S) performance to proxy for social capital, we find no relation between social capital and bond spreads over the period 2006–2019. However, during the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which represents a shock to trust and default risk, high-social-capital firms benefited from lower bond spreads. These effects are stronger for firms with higher expected agency costs of debt and firms whose E&S efforts are more salient. During the crisis, high-social-capital firms were also able to raise more debt, at lower spreads, and for longer maturities. We find no evidence that the governance element of ESG is related to bond spreads. The gap between E&S performance of firms in the bottom and top E&S terciles has narrowed since the financial crisis, especially in the year prior to accessing the bond market.