Perspectiva histórica desde la teoría de la inteligencia unitaria

4.2.1. Capital Market Incentives

Some studies show that listed (or publicly traded) banks have incentive to use loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings possibly to minimise fluctuation in stock prices (Anandarajan et al., 2007; Leventis et al., 2011). Anandarajan et al. (2007) demonstrate that if smoothed earnings can reduce earnings variability, then lower earnings variability would translate to lower stock price fluctuation and reduce the volatility of stock return. This view assumes that investors view stable stock prices as a good signal for high stock return. If this view holds true then bank managers will have incentive to smooth reported earnings to improve stock return in the short term. Anandarajan et al. (2007) investigate bank earnings smoothing practices among Australian banks during the 1991 to 2001 period and find that listed Australian banks aggressively use loan loss provisions to smooth earnings compared to non-listed Australian banks. Similarly, Leventis et al. (2011) investigate bank earnings smoothing practices among 91 listed European banks from 18 countries during the 1999 to 2008 period. They observe that European banks use loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings but the earnings smoothing behaviour of listed European banks is significantly reduced after mandatory IFRS adoption.

70

One criticism of using listed and unlisted bank comparison to test for capital market incentive is that the use of stock returns data of listed banks is more appropriate to capture capital market incentives rather than using bank earnings data for listed and unlisted banks.19 However, the usual justification for using bank earnings data as opposed to stock returns data is that, although it is easy to obtain the daily stock return or stock price data of firms, it is practically impossible to obtain data for daily earnings or daily loan loss provisions for the purpose of empirical modelling.

4.2.2. Regulation and Regulatory Scrutiny

Regulation can create incentives for regulated firms to smooth reported earnings when the cost associated with regulatory scrutiny is perceived to be higher for firms that report excessive profits (Burgstahler and Dichev, 1997, cited in Shen and Chih, 2005). Similarly, banks will smooth reported earnings when they expect high earnings to avoid the cost associated with excessive scrutiny of bank profit by bank

regulators/supervisors. Moreover, if there are additional benefits to be derived from deliberately smoothing reported earnings other than the need to avoid excessive scrutiny of bank earnings, bank managers are likely to do so to take advantage of such benefits. For instance, Kilic et al. (2012)

investigate the impact of SFAS 133 on the reporting behaviour of US commercial banks. SFAS 133 is the FASB’s accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. They argue that the strict

recognition and classification requirements of SFAS 133 reduced US banks' ability to smooth earnings through the use of derivatives; therefore, banks that were affected by SFAS 133 could rely more on loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings rather than relying on derivatives. To test this argument, they examine 119 US banks and divide their sample into pre-SFAS 133 period (1999-2000) and post-SFAS 133 period (2001-2002). Their explanation for the choice of the narrow sample period was to capture the changes occurring around the enactment of SFAS 133 and to avoid possible contamination from other events. Consistent with their argument, Kilic et al. (2012) find evidence that US banks use loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings when disclosure regulation made it difficult to use derivatives to smooth bank earnings. They conclude that the use of loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings implies declining informativeness of reported loan loss provisions estimates. Ashraf and Hassan (2014)

19 _{This viewpoint was received from conference discussants at the British Accounting and Finance Association}

71

investigate whether changes in accounting standards and prudential regulatory regime affects the use of loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings in a cross-country context. They examine 7343 banks from 118 countries during the 1999 to 2010 period. They find that banks use loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings but the earnings smoothing behaviour of banks did not change significantly after the change in accounting regime. Furthermore, they observe that banks under rule-based accounting standard regime exhibit higher levels of earnings smoothing compared to banks under a principles-based accounting regime. Taken together, these studies suggest that regulation can create incentives for bank to use loan loss provisions to smooth reported earnings.

4.2.3. Corruption

Barth et al. (2009) relate corruption in a country to banks in the country. They stress that, although banks are important to any society because they are an important source of external finance to business firms and governments and help to reduce poverty and income inequality, the ability of banks to fulfil this role to society is limited because banks are susceptible to corruption. Barth et al. (2009) point out that the general lack of adequate laws, objective courts, prudential regulations, and other appropriate institutions to sufficiently contain corruption is a cause for the increase in corruption in developing countries. Bhattacharya et al. (2003) argue that another important consequence of corruption largely ignored in the economic and accounting literature is the impact of corruption on accounting quality as well as the impact of corruption on bank reporting behaviour. They stress that one obvious manifestation of low accounting quality is high levels of earnings opacity. They posit that accounting quality in a given country can be measured by three dimensions of earnings opacity: loss avoidance, earnings smoothing and earnings aggressiveness. They associate increased earnings smoothing with higher earnings opacity and posit that higher earnings smoothing lower the transparency of reported earnings, thereby increasing earnings opacity. Bhattacharya et al. (2003) find that earnings are opaque because a) bank managers have an incentive to manipulate earnings, b) accounting standards are too loose and, c) the enforcement of standards is very lax. Interestingly, Riahi-Belkaoui (2003) builds upon Bhattacharya et al. (2003)’s argument. Riahi-Belkaoui (2003) examines the impact of corruption on earnings opacity among ‘firms’ not ‘banks’. The study argues that earnings management or earnings opacity is conditional on the level of

72

corruption prevailing in a particular country. Following the view that earnings opacity is a measure of accounting quality, the main premise of the study is that lack of corruption will decrease earnings opacity, improving accounting quality. Riahi-Belkaoui (2003) find a significant negative relationship between the level of corruption and the level of earnings opacity after controlling for economic development, human development, economic freedom and size of government. To date, the impact of corruption on bank earnings smoothing via loan loss provisions behaviour has not been explored in the banking literature. Going forward, one way to think about the impact of corruption on bank earnings smoothing is that the existence of high level corruption also communicates the existence of weak accountability systems that bank managers can exploit and take advantage of, to opportunistically manipulate reported earnings. Accordingly, bank managers in corrupt environments can smooth earnings to hide the true economic reality of bank earnings to mislead bank owners or financial statement users. Loan loss provisions estimate is one possible tool that bank managers might use to make reported earnings appear stable over time while perpetuating fraud.

4.2.4. Competition

Market competition is considered to be an effective instrument for solving agency problems and improving corporate governance among firms (Fama, 1980). Marciukaityte and Park (2009) points out that earnings management in competitive environments may help firms prosper in a short-run but reduce firms’ ability to compete in the long-run. Francis et al. (2004) observe that earnings smoothing help firms to reduce the cost of capital by reducing information asymmetry between managers and investors and increase the firm’s ability to compete while Marciukaityte and Park (2009) find that industrial firms

report higher earnings smoothing ratios and that the informativeness of stock price is higher for firms in more competitive markets and conclude that while firms in more competitive industries are less likely to engage in earnings management measured as the absolute value of discretionary accruals, firms are more likely to engage in earnings smoothing to improve earnings informativeness.

From a different context, Dou et al. (2014) examine the relationship between bank competition and bank provisioning behaviour and argue that credit competition may influence the level of discretionary loan loss provisions. They argue that banks that have low loan underwriting quality in a given credit market

73

and face the threat of new entry into the market may increase their underwriting quality to leave fewer profitable lending opportunities for potential entrants. Dou et al. (2014) exploited the variation in interstate branching deregulation across contiguous counties from 1994 to 2005 in the US to investigate how increased threat of entry affects resident banks’ reported loan loss provisions. They find that resident

banks in the counties record lower loan loss provisions than banks resident in other states. To date, it remains unknown or unclear whether differences in cross-country banking competition significantly influence bank earnings smoothing via loan loss provisions.