媒体监督、管理层权力与盈余管理

本文以2015-2017年沪深A股上市公司为样本,深入分析管理层权力对盈余管理的影响,并进一步考察媒体监督在管理层权力对盈余管理的影响中发挥的调节作用。研究发现:第一,管理层权力对盈余管理程度有显著正向影响,即管理层权力越大,应计和真实盈余管理程度越高;第二,良好的媒介环境能够显著抑制管理层权力对盈余管理程度的影响,媒体监督具有公司治理作用。     

股权质押、盈余管理与审计师风险应对

基于2007—2018年我国A股1109家上市公司的数据,研究大股东股权质押、真实盈余管理与审计师风险应对之间的关系,探究真实盈余管理程度是否增强了大股东股权质押与审计师风险应对的正向关系。研究发现:大股东股权质押正向影响了审计费用和审计意见;真实盈余管理程度加剧了大股东股权质押后的负面效果,进而加强了大股东股权质押与审计费用间的正向关系,但对审计意见的影响不显著;进一步的研究发现:上期的审计费用反向助长了当期的股权质押率;存在大股东股权质押的上市公司,审计师出具非标准审计意见的概率会随审计费用的提高而加大。该结论扩展了审计师风险应对的研究范围及影响大股东股权质押的其他因素,对提高审计师风险应对及完善大股东股权质押政策具有一定的参考价值。     

大股东掏空与盈余管理关系研究——基于掏空效应引入盈余管理模型视角

大股东与中小股东的利益冲突是现代企业发展过程中广泛存在的重要问题。本文基于委托代理问题与大股东掏空路径,选取2012－2019年A股上市公司数据,将大股东掏空效应引入Kothari et al.（2005）修正的Jones模型,计算应计盈余时剔除关联交易行为与资金占用的影响,比较剔除前后可操纵利润的差异,对大股东掏空与盈余管理的关系进行实证研究。鉴于大股东掏空本身对盈余管理模型计算有影响,本文的做法可以形象反映掏空对盈余管理的影响路径,即大股东通过实现关联交易和资金占用,导致可操纵应计利润减少,企业会通过其他手段进行盈余管理。另外,还考虑不同产权性质的影响,结果发现国企相对于非国企来说,以掩盖大股东掏空为动机进行应计盈余管理的动机更强。     

融资约束、管理层能力与盈余管理的关系研究

文章以2007—2020年沪深A股上市企业为研究对象，采用多元回归模型研究融资约束对盈余管理的影响，并运用数据包络分析法（DEA）度量管理层能力，检验企业管理层能力的调节作用。结果表明，融资约束和盈余管理呈显著的正相关关系，而管理层能力在两者的关系中起到缓解的调节作用。     

管理层权力、盈余管理与股市流动性——基于企业生命周期的视角

以我国沪深两市 A股数据,检验了企业处于生命周期的不同阶段,管理层权力对应计盈余管理和真实盈余管理的影响。研究结果发现：企业生命周期会影响管理层权力对盈余管理方式的选择。管理层权力较高的上市公司在做出盈余管理策略时,会选择在企业成长期进行应计盈余管理,而选择在成长期、成熟期和衰退期进行真实活动盈余管理。进一步研究发现：权力高管在实施应计盈余管理后提高了股票交易活跃度,而在实施真实盈余管理活动后降低了股票交易活跃度。     

盈余管理对我国上市公司财务困境影响的实证研究

通过Logistic回归分析应计盈余管理和真实盈余管理对公司财务困境的影响,深化利益相关者对盈余管理经济后果的理解.研究结果表明,应计盈余管理与公司陷入财务困境显著正相关,公司前三年进行正向应计盈余管理程度越大,公司更容易陷入财务困境.而实证结果没有得出真实盈余管理与财务困境显著的相关关系,这并不能说明真实盈余管理对公司陷入财务困境没有显著影响,只是真实盈余管理对公司财务状况的影响是一个长期的过程,短期内两者关系不能很好的得到反映.     

管理层权力对房地产企业绩效的影响研究——基于股权集中度的调节效应

依据房地产行业上市公司2014-2019年数据,借鉴Finkelstein的权力模型,基于股权集中度的调节效应,考量管理层权力对房地产企业绩效的影响。结果表明：管理层权力与企业绩效之间存在明显的正相关关系,股权集中程度对两者之间的关系产生调节作用。其中,结构权力与企业绩效显著正相关,股权集中会削弱二者的正相关关系;所有者权力与企业绩效显著正相关,股权集中会削弱所有者的激励效果;声望权力与企业绩效显著正相关,股权集中会削弱二者的正相关关系;专家权力与企业绩效之间关系不显著。     

股份支付并购中存在不同的盈余管理吗?——来自中国上市公司的经验证据

本文从收购方的视角,以2008~2010年在并购过程中采用股份支付方式的中国上市公司为样本,实证考察了中国上市公司在股份支付并购中的盈余管理机会主义行为以及对并购绩效的影响。研究结果发现:收购方在并购前半年存在显著正向应计盈余管理机会主义行为;在并购当期存在显著正向真实盈余管理机会主义行为;并购后一年公司业绩的下降程度受到应计盈余管理与真实盈余管理的交替影响;股份支付并购是促使公司管理层产生盈余管理的动机之一,并且对并购后一年绩效显著下降具有一定的解释力度。     

CEO权力、董事会稳定性与盈余管理

基于CEO和董事会相对权力的视角,研究了CEO权力和董事会稳定性对盈余质量的影响。研究发现,CEO权力越大,上市公司盈余管理程度越高;而稳定的董事会能够有效削弱CEO权力与盈余管理之间的正相关关系。区分企业产权性质后发现,上述研究结论主要体现在民营企业中。进一步研究发现,CEO任期较短时,CEO相对董事会的权力较小,稳定的董事会能够有效削弱CEO权力与盈余管理之间的正相关关系。但随着CEO任期的增长,CEO相对于董事会的权力越强,董事会并不能有效监督CEO操纵盈余管理行为。     

终极产权性质、第一大股东对盈余质量的影响分析

以我国2006年底已经实施了股改的深沪两地A股上市公司2007～2008年的经验数据为样本,采用收益-盈余模型检验了终极产权性质、第一大股东与盈余质量之间的关系,研究发现:对于已经实施了股改的上市公司,股权仍然相对集中;当上市公司属于国家终极控制时,盈余质量会较高;第一大股东持股比例与盈余质量正相关;第一大股东对上市公司董事会的控制能力与盈余质量正相关;其他大股东对控股股东的制衡能力对盈余质量的影响不显著.     

Stock liquidity and managerial short-termism

We examine whether stock liquidity exacerbates or mitigates managerial short-termism. Utilizing earnings management as a proxy for managerial short-termism, we establish three major findings. First, firms with liquid stocks engage in less accrual-based and real earnings management. Second, the effect of stock liquidity on earnings management is amplified for firms with high levels of managerial pay-for-performance sensitivity. Third, the positive association between the intensity of earnings management and firm cost of capital is evident only for firms with low stock liquidity. Our findings are consistent with the threat of blockholder exit as the main governance channel through which stock liquidity discourages opportunistic earnings management and mitigates managerial short-termism.     

Takeover protection and managerial myopia: Evidence from real earnings management

We examine whether takeover protection exacerbates or mitigates real earnings management (i.e., using abnormal real activities to meet near-term earnings targets). Consistent with Stein’s (1988) prediction that takeover pressure induces managerial myopia, we find that less-protected firms are associated with higher levels of real earnings management. We further disentangle the value-destroying and signaling effects of real earnings management by finding that although abnormal real activities in general are associated with lower future performance, abnormal real activities intended to just meet earnings targets are associated with higher future performance, consistent with real earnings management conveying a signal of superior future performance in addition to a general value-destroying effect. Taken together, our evidence suggests that takeover protection reduces managers’ pressure to resort to real earnings management as a costly means of signaling better future performance.     

Boards,takeover protection,and real earnings management

We investigate the effect of board governance and takeover protection on real earnings management. Four types of real earnings management are considered: sales manipulation, overproduction, the abnormal reduction of research and development (R&D) expenses, and the abnormal reduction of other discretionary expenditures. Using panel data from US public firms in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley Act period, we find that the level of real earnings management (sales manipulation, abnormal declines in R&D expenses, and other discretionary expenses) increases with better board governance and decreases with higher takeover protection. These two governance factors generally have no significant effect on overproduction. We further find that firms substitute accrual-based earnings management with sales manipulation and abnormal cuts in discretionary expenses, and the substitution effect is more pronounced in firms with stronger board governance. Overall, our findings indicate that the level of real earnings management is higher when a firm is faced with tough board monitoring, and that takeover protection may reduce managerial incentives for real earnings management.     

Earnings Management and Analyst Following: A Simultaneous Equations Analysis

We use a simultaneous equations system to examine the relationship between earnings management and analyst following. We find that analysts’ decisions to follow firms and managerial decisions to manage earnings are jointly determined. Firms with lower levels of accrual‐based earnings management offer a better information environment to attract analyst following. Analyst following, in turn, has important monitoring effects on managerial behavior and results in lower levels of both accrual‐based and real earnings management. The information intermediary effect on analyst following is much weaker for expected “suspect firms” that manage their earnings continuously.     

How does competition affect real earnings management to meet or beat targets? Evidence from import tariff reductions

Targets provide incentives for earnings management, and a longstanding question is whether earnings management is undertaken opportunistically or to communicate private information about future firm value. To discriminate between these motivations, I follow analytical research showing that an increase in competition through a large decrease in tariffs disciplines managers and better aligns their interests with those of shareholders. Thus, if earnings management reflects managerial opportunism, then an increase in competition will decrease earnings management; and if it signals future performance expectations, then an increase in competition will increase earnings management. Consistent with earnings management indicating managerial opportunism, I show that an increase in competition decreases real earnings management to avoid reporting negative earnings or a negative change in earnings. In addition, by showing that the lessening of trade barriers through import tariff reductions reduces the use of real earnings management to meet or beat earnings targets, I provide evidence on the role of macroeconomic conditions as a determinant of earnings quality.     

Product market power and management’s action to avoid earnings disappointment

We investigate the empirical relationship between a firm’s product market power and its management’s action to use real-activity-based earnings management techniques to avoid earnings disappointment by meeting or beating earnings targets such as analysts’ earnings forecasts, positive earnings, or higher earnings relative to previous years. While there is a general consensus that product market competition in an industry affects management’s operating and financial decisions, and thus is an important intervening factor in a firm’s strategies for many economic situations (Nickell in J Political Econ 104:724–746, 1996; Porter in The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan, London, 1990), the linkage between product market power, managerial incentives, and financial reporting quality has so far received little academic attention. Our analyses show that while the firms manage both accruals and real activities in varying degrees, the firms having greater product market power with the ability to differentiate their products to earn additional revenue, if necessary, are less inclined to engage in real-activity-based earnings management in certain suspect economic situations compared to the firms with less market power. We, however, do not find any significant relationship between product market power and accrual-based earnings management.     

Real earnings management and cost of capital

This study investigates whether a firm’s cost of equity capital is influenced by the extent of a firm’s real activities management. Using a large sample of U.S. firms, we find that our proxy for the cost of capital is positively associated with the extent of earnings management through the real activities manipulation after controlling for the effect of the accrual-based earnings management. We also provide evidence suggesting that this positive association stems from managerial opportunism rather than from the measurement errors in our real earnings management proxies. The main findings are robust to a battery of sensitivity tests. Collectively, our results suggest that real earnings management activities exacerbate the information quality of earnings used by outside investors, and thus the market demands a higher risk premium for these activities, which is incremental to the risk premium for the accrual-based earnings management.     

How efficient ownership structure monitors income manipulation? Evidence of real earnings management among Malaysian firms

This study investigates income manipulation through real earnings management, by listed companies in Malaysia, prior to being officially designated as “financially distressed”, by this country’s stock exchange listed rules. The hypotheses relate to whether the degree of upwards real earnings management, conducted during the four-year period prior to financial distress, can be explained by ownership structure (measured with three variables: managerial ownership, institutional ownership and foreign ownership). Using a sample of 1180 firm-year observations of financially distressed companies, over the investigation period 2001–2011, the findings suggest that the degree of real earnings management is not associated with ownership by management or institutional investors. Conversely, the evidence indicates that foreign shareholders are able to constrain upwards real earnings management related to discretionary expenditure but not the operating cycle. This study contributes to the importance of diversity of ownership structures in monitoring income manipulation among firms.     

Product market competition and earnings management: A firm‐level analysis

In this paper, we employ a firm‐level measure of product market competition constructed from the textual analysis of firms’ 10‐K filings to examine the relationship between managers’ perceived competition pressure and earnings management. We find that accounting irregularities and accrual‐based earnings management are positively related to product market competition. This finding is consistent with the notion that competition pressure increases managerial incentives to manage earnings, due to their career concerns. We also find that real earnings management is negatively related to product market competition. This finding suggests that real earnings management involves actions that decrease firms’ competitiveness and thus is costly for firms confronted with high competition pressure.