Abstract
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.