Do firms engage in earnings management to improve credit ratings?: Evidence from KRX bond issuers

In this paper, we examine the relationship between credit ratings, credit ratings changes and earnings management. Since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, many listed firms collapsed, leading investors to suffer losses. As a result, credit ratings have become a very important indicators of firms’ financial stability for investors, government agencies and debt issuers and other stakeholders. Firms with a similar credit rating are grouped together as firms of similar credit quality (Kisgen 2006) because credit ratings provide an ‘economically meaningful role’ (Boot et al. 2006). Numerous studies find that managers care deeply about their credit ratings (Graham and Harvey 2001; Kisgen 2009; Hovakimian at al. 2009). Firms that borrow equity in the form of bonds may have incentives to increase credit ratings with opportunistic earnings management. A change in a firm’s credit ratings has a direct impact on a firm’s profitability. Firm’s benefit from better terms from suppliers, enjoy better investment opportunities and have lower cost of capital when their credit risk is lower. Firms incur a higher cost of debt and experience additional costs when their credit risk is higher. American studies find that firms use earnings management to influence credit ratings (Ali and Zhang 2008; Jung et al. 2013; Alissa et al 2013). Credit rating agencies have stated they assume financial statements to be reasonable and accurate (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003; Standard and Poor’s, 2006) and they do not consider themselves to be auditors. They take the information in the financial statements as accurate. Therefore, there is a potential for managers to engage in earnings management to influence credit ratings. In South Korea, there have been numerous experiments with auditor legislation because of financial collapses due to earnings management in the 2000s. Therefore, a decomposition of the relation between opportunistic earnings management and credit ratings is an important consideration for Korean accounting academia. Previous Korean studies have examined whether credit ratings in period t are significantly related to level of earnings management in the same period; however, those studies fail to find the consistent results. It is widely known that credit rating agencies allow one year credit watch period to assess default risk before credit rating decision. Firms with an incentive to increase their credit ratings through earnings management will only realize if earnings management positively influences credit ratings in the following year. Therefore, we focus on establishing a relationship between the levels of earnings management at time t and credit ratings / changes at time t+1. Our study provides a more robust analysis by establishing if both accrual based and real earnings management in period t influences credit ratings and credit rating changes in period t+1. Using a sample of 1,717 Korean KRX firm-years from 2002 to 2013, we find a negative relation between earnings management in period t and credit ratings in period t+1, suggesting that firms with higher credit ratings have lower levels of earnings management. Moreover, we find that firms that experience a credit ratings change in period t+1 are less likely to engage in opportunistic earnings management in period t, suggesting that firms do not have the potential to increase credit ratings. We also find that firms that experience a credit rating increase in period t+1 have a negative association with opportunistic earnings management for accruals measures. Moreover, when we split our sample into firms that experience 1) a credit rating increase, 2) decrease and 3) remaining the same, we find that firms that engage in earnings management are more likely to remain unchanged or experience a credit rating decrease. Thus, taken together, we find no evidence of relationship between opportunistic earnings management and an increase in credit ratings in the South Korean public debt market. Our results may be of interest to regulators, credit rating agencies, market participants and firms that question whether level of earnings management in current year influences credit ratings in the subsequent period

Mandatory audit firm rotation and Big4 effect on audit quality: evidence from South Korea

In South Korea, due to concurrent financial scandals, Korean legislators implemented two major audit policies in the 2000s; the mandatory audit “partner” rotation policy in 2000 and the mandatory audit “firm” rotation policy in 2006. The mandatory audit “firm” rotation policy was introduced as a mean to improve audit quality based on the auditor entrenchment hypothesis. In this paper, we compare the audit quality of firms subjected to mandatory audit “firm” rotation with two benchmark groups, a sample that adopted the policy voluntarily; the second group consists of the mandatory “firm” rotation sample in years prior, a period firms were subject to mandatory audit “partner” rotation. Using accrual-based measures as proxies for audit quality, we find evidence that audit quality of the mandatory rotation firm sample is lower compared to firms that voluntarily adopted the policy. Furthermore, we find evidence that audit quality of the mandatory rotation firm sample is lower compared to the mandatory audit partner firm sample. Additionally, we also find evidence that the mandatory audit firms rotation sample whose auditors were rotated from Non-Big4 to Big4 are generally associated with lower levels of abnormal accruals consistent with the argument that the audit quality of Big4 accounting firms is superior to Non-Big4 firms. Finally, longer audit tenure and switches to Big4 audit firms generally have a positive effect upon audit quality. These findings suggest that extended audit tenure improves audit quality due to accounting firm’s accumulated client specific knowledge. Thus, our evidence suggests that the mandatory audit firm rotation policy did not have the desired effect in a Korean context

Does the productivity of labor influence credit risk? new evidence from South Korea

We find a positive relation between the productivity of labor in period t and credit ratings in period t+1, suggesting that firms that use the least amount of input (labor) to achieve output (sales) are considered to have decreasing levels of default risk. After we divide our sample into investment grade and non-investment grade firm samples, the relation changes. We find a consistent relation for the investment grade sample. However, the relation is negative for the non-investment grade suggesting that market participants capture NIG firm's potential detrimental behavior

Does Market Performance (Tobin’s Q) Have A Negative Effect On Credit Ratings? Evidence From South Korea

Tobin's Q is an established measure of firm performance, based on investor confidence. However, the association between Tobin's Q and credit ratings is not well-established in the literature. Results Using a sample of Korean listed firms over the 2001-2016 sample period, Probit regression analysis shows that overall, Tobin's Q is positively associated with credit ratings. However, for firms with a >1 (1<) Tobin's Q ratio, a negative (positive) relationship exists. Moreover, in independent regressions, a threshold level if found where the effect of Tobin's Q on credit ratings changes from being positive (0.2), to negative (0.3). Originality To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to demonstrate that credit rating agencies are nuanced when making default risk assessments. Specifically, that in South Korea, a threshold level exists, at which increasing Tobin's Q values reduce credit ratings. Empirical evidence of the different association between Tobin's Q (market confidence) and credit ratings can extend the literature and offer insights to market participants. Furthermore, because Tobin's Q is a commonly used proxy for 2 financial performance in accounting lectures, the study has practical implications for academics in classrooms

A comparative analysis of human capital information opaqueness in South Korea and the UK

Design/methodology/approach Using 2018 as a sample period, content analysis is used to evaluate the annual reports of the 25 largest British and 25 largest Korean firms to demonstrate the propensity of British/Korean firms to disclose human capital information as numerical and textual data. Purpose Human capital is considered by many to be a firm's most important asset. However, because no international human capital reporting framework exists, firms can decide to include/exclude human capital details on annual reports. Based on legitimacy theory, firms that disclose high levels of human capital information can be considered congruent with the expectations of society. However, firms can also choose to include human capital information on annual reports for symbolic purposes as an image management strategy. Findings We report that South Korean firms provide high levels of human capital information using narrative and numerical data, including value added human capital elements included on Integrated Reports. British firms on the other hand tend to use primarily positive narrative and limited numerical human capital data to present human capital information. Originality/value The results imply South Korean firms provide robust human capital information on annual reports as a legitimacy strategy. On the other hand, the UK's human capital reporting requirement can be considered as a form of image management. The results therefore have important policy implications for legislators, labour unions and firm stakeholders with incentives to enhance human capital information transparency

Does relative (absolute) efficiency affect capital costs?

In this paper, we examine the effect of relative/absolute firm efficiency on weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Using a sample of Korean listed firms, we find that WACC is negatively associated with relative firm efficiency (operational performance) suggesting that firms with higher (lower) relatively efficiency are expected to pay lower (higher) capital costs. When we repeat our analysis using absolute firm efficiency (ROA), we do not find a statistically significant relationship. Our results suggest relative efficiency which is estimated as output (sales) divided by the resources that are directly under the control of management is assessed by capital providers and impounded into a firm’s capital costs. Absolute efficiency (ROA) which is estimated as sales divided by total assets is not. Our results suggest that simple accounting ratios used in the accounting literature are not considered as informative to explain borrowing costs compared to relative efficiency that captures managerial operational performance

Conservative reporting and the incremental effect of mandatory audit firm rotation policy: a comparative analysis of audit partner rotation vs audit firm rotation in South Korea

In this paper, we take advantage of Korea's unique experiment with mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR) and mandatory audit partner rotation (MAPR) to ascertain their influence on audit quality, proxied by conditional conservatism. Overall, we find that the implementation of MAFR did not have the desired effect. Firms that adopted MAFR demonstrate higher levels of conservatism in previous periods under MAPR (or compared to voluntary adopters). Furthermore, we find that audit tenure increases conservatism levels consistent with the auditor expertise hypothesis. However, whilst evidence suggests MAFR decreases audit quality on the whole, we find that firms that switch from non‐Big 4 to Big 4 auditors demonstrate higher conservatism because Big 4 auditors are more likely to demand conservative accounting practices, consistent with Big 4 audit firm knowledge superiority. Overall, the results suggest that MAFR's negative effect on audit quality can be mitigated by Big 4 auditor supervision