IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v34y2017i2p783-817.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credit Rating Agency and Equity Analysts’ Adjustments to GAAP Earnings

Author

Listed:
  • George Batta
  • Volkan Muslu

Abstract

Moody's analysts and sell†side equity analysts adjust GAAP earnings as part of their research. We show that adjusted earnings definitions of Moody's analysts are significantly lower than those of equity analysts when companies exhibit higher downside risk, as measured by volatility in idiosyncratic stock returns, volatility in negative market returns, poor earnings, and loss status. Relative to the adjusted earnings definitions of equity analysts, adjusted earnings definitions of Moody's analysts better predict future bankruptcies, yet they fare significantly worse in predicting future earnings and operating cash flows. These findings persist after controlling for optimism incentives of analysts, reporting incentives of companies, credit rating levels, and industry and year effects. Our findings suggest that credit rating agencies cater to their clients’ demand for a more conservative interpretation of company†reported performance than what is offered by equity analysts.Dans le cadre de leurs recherches, les analystes de Moody's et les analystes des maisons de courtage ajustent les résultats conformes aux PCGR des sociétés. Les auteurs montrent que les résultats ajustés au sens des analystes de Moody's sont sensiblement inférieurs aux résultats ajustés au sens des analystes des maisons de courtage, lorsque les sociétés affichent un risque de chute des cours plus élevé, évalué en fonction de la volatilité des rendements idiosyncratiques des titres, de la volatilité des rendements négatifs du marché, des résultats médiocres et de la situation de perte. Les résultats ajustés au sens des analystes de Moody's, par rapport aux résultats ajustés au sens des analystes des maisons de courtage, sont plus efficaces dans la prédiction des faillites futures mais le sont beaucoup moins dans la prédiction du comportement futur des résultats et des flux de trésorerie liés à l'exploitation. Ces observations persistent une fois contrôlés les facteurs qui incitent les analystes à l'optimisme, les facteurs qui incitent les société à fournir de l'information, le niveau des évaluations du crédit ainsi que l'incidence du secteur d'activité et de l'année. Les constatations des auteurs laissent croire que les analystes des agences de notation répondent mieux que les analystes des maisons de courtage aux besoins de leurs clients qui réclament une interprétation plus prudente de la performance dont font état les sociétés.

Suggested Citation

  • George Batta & Volkan Muslu, 2017. "Credit Rating Agency and Equity Analysts’ Adjustments to GAAP Earnings," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 783-817, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:34:y:2017:i:2:p:783-817
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Theodore E. Christensen & Hang Pei & Spencer R. Pierce & Liang Tan, 2019. "Non-GAAP reporting following debt covenant violations," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 629-664, June.
    2. James W. Bannister & Harry A. Newman & Emma Y. Peng, 2020. "Top management tournament incentives and credit ratings," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 769-801, August.
    3. Li, Wanyun, 2022. "Disclosure of internal control material weaknesses and optimism in analyst earnings forecasts," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    4. Kim, Jonghoon & 金, 鐘勲 & Koga, Yuya, 2020. "The Value and Credit Relevance of IFRS versus JGAAP Accounting Information," Hitotsubashi Journal of commerce and management, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 53(1), pages 31-48, February.
    5. Sascha B. Herr & Peter Lorson & Jochen Pilhofer, 2022. "Alternative Performance Measures: A Structured Literature Review of Research in Academic and Professional Journals," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 389-451, September.
    6. Samuel B. Bonsall & Kevin Koharki & Pepa Kraft & Karl A. Muller & Anywhere Sikochi, 2023. "Do Rating Agencies Behave Defensively for Higher Risk Issuers?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4864-4887, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:34:y:2017:i:2:p:783-817. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.