Earnings management around debt-covenant violations : am empirical investigation using a large sample of quarterly data created by Anand Jha
Material type: TextSeries: Journal of accounting, auditing and finance ; Volume 28, number 4,California: Sage Publications; 2013Content type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
Item type | Current library | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal Article | Main Library Journal Article | HF5601 JOU (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol.28, No.4 page 369 - 396 | Not for loan |
Browsing Main Library shelves, Shelving location: Journal Article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
I find that managers manage earnings upward in the quarters preceding a debt-covenant violation, but downward in the quarter a violation occurs. And they continue to manage earnings downward while the firm remains in violation. Because this scenario can play out within a year, the use of yearly data to examine the debt-covenant hypothesis can be problematic. Further analysis shows that the earnings management around the debt-covenant violation is also done to improve the manager’s bargaining power in the renegotiation that follows the violation. Furthermore, I find no evidence of excessive earnings management by high-debt firms to stave off a violation, but I do find evidence that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act restrains managers from using accruals to stave off a violation. These results are based on examining 193,803 firm-quarters, 8,804 firms, and 2,035 new covenant violations spanning 1996 to 2007.
There are no comments on this title.