Management’s earnings justification and earnings management under different institutional regimes

W.A.A. Aerts, P. Cheng, A. Tarca

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    Abstract

    Manuscript Type
    Empirical

    Research Question/Issue

    This study examines whether accruals earnings management is associated with managers' explanations of performance provided in narrative reports accompanying the financial statements in an international setting that covers voluntary and mandatory institutional environments for management commentary (MC) reporting. Differences in institutional environment are theorized as having a profound impact on the relative adequacy of different explanation types in mitigating earnings management concerns.

    Research Findings/Insights

    Based on 162 companies from four countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada), the study reports a close alignment of the use of earnings explanations and the strength and direction of accruals management. The results indicate that explanation type significantly affects the association between performance explanations and accruals management and that this effect becomes more pronounced in a mandatory institutional regime where expected regulatory and litigation costs are higher.

    Theoretical/Academic Implications

    The results indicate that the mandatory setting for narrative reporting (United States and Canada) affects the type of explanation perceived by managers to be more effective in mitigating potential concerns about earnings management. In a mandatory setting, the more costly causal explanations are more likely to be used by companies that are engaged in upwards earnings management.

    Practitioner/Policy Implications

    Regulators have debated about how to promote useful disclosure in management commentary reports. They have pointed to the need for more meaningful causal explanations. Our findings are relevant to the debate as they show that more scrutiny via a mandatory reporting regime (with associated higher expected litigation and regulatory costs) is a setting that encourages provision of these more costly causality-based explanations when preparers have incentives to ensure the adequacy of their explanations.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)93-115
    JournalCorporate Governance: An International Review
    Volume21
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    Managers
    Justification
    Earnings management
    Accruals
    Costs
    Industry
    Adequacy
    Canada
    Regulatory costs
    Litigation costs
    Institutional environment
    Causality
    Disclosure
    Alignment
    Incentives
    Financial statements

    Cite this

    @article{20926b567705469994ebf055af120811,
    title = "Management’s earnings justification and earnings management under different institutional regimes",
    abstract = "Manuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueThis study examines whether accruals earnings management is associated with managers' explanations of performance provided in narrative reports accompanying the financial statements in an international setting that covers voluntary and mandatory institutional environments for management commentary (MC) reporting. Differences in institutional environment are theorized as having a profound impact on the relative adequacy of different explanation types in mitigating earnings management concerns.Research Findings/InsightsBased on 162 companies from four countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada), the study reports a close alignment of the use of earnings explanations and the strength and direction of accruals management. The results indicate that explanation type significantly affects the association between performance explanations and accruals management and that this effect becomes more pronounced in a mandatory institutional regime where expected regulatory and litigation costs are higher.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThe results indicate that the mandatory setting for narrative reporting (United States and Canada) affects the type of explanation perceived by managers to be more effective in mitigating potential concerns about earnings management. In a mandatory setting, the more costly causal explanations are more likely to be used by companies that are engaged in upwards earnings management.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsRegulators have debated about how to promote useful disclosure in management commentary reports. They have pointed to the need for more meaningful causal explanations. Our findings are relevant to the debate as they show that more scrutiny via a mandatory reporting regime (with associated higher expected litigation and regulatory costs) is a setting that encourages provision of these more costly causality-based explanations when preparers have incentives to ensure the adequacy of their explanations.",
    author = "W.A.A. Aerts and P. Cheng and A. Tarca",
    year = "2013",
    language = "English",
    volume = "21",
    pages = "93--115",
    journal = "Corporate Governance: An International Review",
    issn = "0964-8410",
    publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
    number = "1",

    }

    Management’s earnings justification and earnings management under different institutional regimes. / Aerts, W.A.A.; Cheng, P.; Tarca, A.

    In: Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2013, p. 93-115.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Management’s earnings justification and earnings management under different institutional regimes

    AU - Aerts, W.A.A.

    AU - Cheng, P.

    AU - Tarca, A.

    PY - 2013

    Y1 - 2013

    N2 - Manuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueThis study examines whether accruals earnings management is associated with managers' explanations of performance provided in narrative reports accompanying the financial statements in an international setting that covers voluntary and mandatory institutional environments for management commentary (MC) reporting. Differences in institutional environment are theorized as having a profound impact on the relative adequacy of different explanation types in mitigating earnings management concerns.Research Findings/InsightsBased on 162 companies from four countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada), the study reports a close alignment of the use of earnings explanations and the strength and direction of accruals management. The results indicate that explanation type significantly affects the association between performance explanations and accruals management and that this effect becomes more pronounced in a mandatory institutional regime where expected regulatory and litigation costs are higher.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThe results indicate that the mandatory setting for narrative reporting (United States and Canada) affects the type of explanation perceived by managers to be more effective in mitigating potential concerns about earnings management. In a mandatory setting, the more costly causal explanations are more likely to be used by companies that are engaged in upwards earnings management.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsRegulators have debated about how to promote useful disclosure in management commentary reports. They have pointed to the need for more meaningful causal explanations. Our findings are relevant to the debate as they show that more scrutiny via a mandatory reporting regime (with associated higher expected litigation and regulatory costs) is a setting that encourages provision of these more costly causality-based explanations when preparers have incentives to ensure the adequacy of their explanations.

    AB - Manuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssueThis study examines whether accruals earnings management is associated with managers' explanations of performance provided in narrative reports accompanying the financial statements in an international setting that covers voluntary and mandatory institutional environments for management commentary (MC) reporting. Differences in institutional environment are theorized as having a profound impact on the relative adequacy of different explanation types in mitigating earnings management concerns.Research Findings/InsightsBased on 162 companies from four countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, and Canada), the study reports a close alignment of the use of earnings explanations and the strength and direction of accruals management. The results indicate that explanation type significantly affects the association between performance explanations and accruals management and that this effect becomes more pronounced in a mandatory institutional regime where expected regulatory and litigation costs are higher.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThe results indicate that the mandatory setting for narrative reporting (United States and Canada) affects the type of explanation perceived by managers to be more effective in mitigating potential concerns about earnings management. In a mandatory setting, the more costly causal explanations are more likely to be used by companies that are engaged in upwards earnings management.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsRegulators have debated about how to promote useful disclosure in management commentary reports. They have pointed to the need for more meaningful causal explanations. Our findings are relevant to the debate as they show that more scrutiny via a mandatory reporting regime (with associated higher expected litigation and regulatory costs) is a setting that encourages provision of these more costly causality-based explanations when preparers have incentives to ensure the adequacy of their explanations.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 21

    SP - 93

    EP - 115

    JO - Corporate Governance: An International Review

    JF - Corporate Governance: An International Review

    SN - 0964-8410

    IS - 1

    ER -