Bank intervention and firms’ earnings management: evidence from debt covenant violations

Earnings management has long been one of the main concerns in accounting and management literature, and the extent to which corporate governance mechanisms can discipline management behaviour and prevent earnings management has attracted increasing interest among policy makers and academic researchers. Differing from previous corporate governance literature that focuses mainly on the board and auditors, we explore the role of creditors in corporate governance. In particular, we examine the effect of bank intervention on earnings management via the lens of debt covenant violations, where control rights are transferred to creditors (banks). Using a Difference-in-Difference approach, we find that firms reduce both their accruals-based and real earnings management following debt covenant violations. The negative effect on earnings management is more prominent when banks possess greater bargaining and monitoring power and when firms are more financially constrained. By identifying a specific channel through which debt providers influence corporate financial reporting, our findings suggest that creditors can play an important role in governing organisations and disciplining management behaviour.</p

Evidence that financing decisions contribute to the zero-earnings discontinuity

In this paper we argue that financing decisions contribute to the zero-earnings discontinuity. We find a discontinuity in the distribution of earnings before tax and earnings before special items, but not in the distribution of earnings before interest which suggests that interest expense contributes to the zero-earnings discontinuity. We provide evidence that the impact of financing decisions on the earnings discontinuity can be explained by cost of financing. To investigate the role of interest expense in the zero-earnings discontinuity, we further show that there was a discontinuity in the distribution of the level of debt issues around zero earnings contemporaneous with the zero-earnings discontinuity. We also show that the recent disappearance of zero-earnings discontinuity is coincident with the disappearance of the discontinuity in the debt issuance distribution. Overall, our findings suggest that the level of debt contributed to the zero-earnings discontinuity when it existed.</p

Wholesale funding and liquidity creation

We examine the relationship between wholesale funding and liquidity creation using a sample of 825 banks in 84 countries during the post-crisis period of 2010–2020. We find that asset-side liquidity creation is consistently negatively associated with short-term wholesale funding, but not with long-term wholesale funding. Our results suggest that the relationship of short-term wholesale funding with asset-side liquidity creation is significantly driven by a negative relationship with illiquid lending. Moreover, our results show that the negative relationship between wholesale funding and liquidity creation is positively moderated by asset risk, suggesting the presence of moral hazard incentives. Our results are robust to a series of tests and have important implications for bank liquidity regulation

Bank regulation, supervision and liquidity creation

The exposures of the banking system during the global financial crisis of 2007–2009 alerted regulators who strengthened their regulation and supervision of banks to prevent future problems. Yet, banks need to perform one of their main functions in the economy, which is creating liquidity. This raises the question: does greater regulation and supervision of banks enhance or impede bank liquidity creation? We use the 2019 Bank Regulation and Supervision Survey published by the World Bank to update the respective indexes and examine the relationship between regulation, supervision and liquidity creation. We find that banks create more liquidity in countries with stronger supervision policies such as supervisory power and mitigation of moral hazard, while they create less liquidity in countries with tighter regulatory regimes such as activity restrictions and capital regulations