Next Article in Journal
Corruption, Taxation and the Impact on the Shadow Economy
Previous Article in Journal
Social Aspects of Tourism Policy in the European Union. The Example of Poland and Slovakia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Earnings Management in Frontier Market: Do Institutional Settings Matter?

1
School of Business and Management, RMIT University, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
2
School of Accounting, Information Systems & Supply Chain, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 22 September 2020 / Revised: 21 January 2021 / Accepted: 26 January 2021 / Published: 4 February 2021

Abstract

:
We analyse whether differences in earnings management practices in frontier countries can be explained by institutional settings, considering their diverse corporate governance environments, legal regimes, and accounting standards. Across 22 frontier market countries from 2000–2017, we find that financial disclosure, legal environments, and the number of analysts following to be correlated with reduced levels of earnings management (EM). The impact of wealth, GDP growth, firm size, and the use of Big-4 auditors were also associated with reduced EM. Contrary to developed markets and novel to this study, higher levels of societal trust failed to show significance in its ability to constrain EM, suggesting informal institutions are less influential as control monitors. Findings herein verify that the factors that moderate EM are not universally applicable, and help highlight international differences in the management of earnings.

1. Introduction

The extent to which managers alter reported earnings is a significant concern for the accounting profession (Mostafa 2017). Although extensive academic research in the earnings manipulation arena exists, empirical work focusing on a wide spectrum of frontier markets and the constraint provided by institutional factors is limited. Frontier market countries have unique earnings management (EM) dynamics due to their developmental infancy, relative illiquidity, weak fiscal monitoring, and low correlation with developed markets.1,2 Lin and Wu (2014) note that the degree to which firms manipulate earnings is higher in frontier markets than in developed markets as managers are less constrained by corporate governance. This study reduces the literature imbalance and illuminate institutional settings’ constraints on accruals earnings management (AEM), an earning management technique customarily practised in frontier market countries. We conjecture that information asymmetry between managers and investors is exacerbated by weak institutional fiscal monitoring. The significant variation of institutional settings between and within frontier market countries and firms and the need to understand the appropriateness of EM constraint factors, provide sufficient justification for a dedicated frontier market study. In the paragraph that follows, we outline why institutional factors are expected to differ in their ability to constrain in frontier markets.
In frontier markets, firm insiders often have a greater opportunity to expropriate investors’ benefits (Tang and Chen 2013), hence the need to examine AEM constraint factors. Studies demonstrate that well-structured institutional settings constrain EM (Boonlert-U-Thai et al. 2006; Enomoto et al. 2015; Shen and Chih 2005). Prior research has also identified that good corporate governance mechanisms may reduce or eliminate AEM (Bekiris and Doukakis 2011; Man and Wong 2013). The lower levels of governance and disclosure in emerging and frontier markets (Odell and Ali 2016) provides a unique setting for EM practices and is an avenue that has been under-examined. The application of AEM to manage earnings is significantly lower in firms exhibiting superior fiscal governance environments and normative transparency (Zhu et al. 2015). As an inverse relationship between EM and investor returns ultimately places EM’s cost on a firms’ shareholders (Kim and Sohn 2011; Wu et al. 2012), managers shift between AEM and other EM techniques, depending upon each techniques’ respective costs and constraints (Kim and Sohn 2011; Sohn 2016). A clear understanding of whether institutional settings constrain AEM is crucial to broaden the literature and proper policy gap identification and firm development.
The empirical results of our study extend current literature in several significant and innovative ways. First, we apply both discretionary accruals and non-discretionary accruals detection models. Second, this study is the first to examine the institutional settings’ ability to constrain AEM in frontier market countries exclusively. Third, contrary to expectations, we find that societal trust was not influential in curbing the level of AEM in frontier markets. Fourth, the ability of minority investors’ rights to curb AEM was mixed when examined with macro and firm-level control variables.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews related literature and develops this study’s hypothesis. Section 3 describes the research design and methodology. Section 4 presents the empirical results. Section 5 presents the findings of additional robustness tests. Section 6 concludes with a discussion of the study’s implications and recommendations for future research.

2. Related Literature and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Accruals Earnings Management

Manipulation of operating accruals is the oft favoured EM method due to its detection difficulties and the absence of direct cash flow consequences (Wang et al. 2018). Many researchers view the accrual component of income as a greater measure of current and future performance,3 and as a measure of earnings quality (Ma and Ma 2017; Sloan 1996; Xie et al. 2003). The accrual component of earnings is closely related to sales growth, is less persistent than cash flow (Jones 1991; Sloan 1996), and is negatively associated with future stock prices (Pincus et al. 2007). Given the importance of accruals, researchers often decompose total accruals into normal (expected or non-discretionary) and abnormal (unexpected or discretionary) to examine its information content. Subramanyam (1996) provides evidence that abnormal accrual income has higher information content than the cash-based components.
The Jones (1991) AEM detection model has played a significant role in EM studies. Many studies employ this method (or variants thereof) to determine abnormal accruals. In examining the model’s detection power via the occurrence of Type I and Type II errors, Dechow et al. (1995) concluded that the Jones model outperformed other models in detecting AEM. All models, however, are subject to significant measurement errors (Pae 2005). Chen et al. (2018) report that AEM models that rely on residuals can lead to incorrect inferences. To avoid reliance on a single method, this study applies three detection methods.

2.2. Characteristics of Frontier Markets

Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) separates markets into three categories of development based on size and liquidity: Developed, Emerging, and Frontier. Differentiating frontier markets from other markets is their degree of corporate governance, regulatory environment, level of investor protection, education, and accessibility—for which they score only ’modest’ (MSCI 2020). Underscoring the characteristics and uniqueness of frontier markets, Lang and Maffett (2011) find inconsistent legal regimes and low transparency levels to be a significant hurdle for foreign investors and cultivates an environment in which earnings are more easily managed. Chen et al. (2014) state that frontier markets require the most private capital for development and often present the most problems. Despite problems, Bley and Saad (2012) find that frontier markets possess a significantly positive relationship between returns and volatility—a relationship not explained by risk factors. Berger et al. (2011) and Guesmi and Nguyen (2011) note frontier markets’ low integration with other markets provides greater return and diversification benefits (Girard and Sinha 2008). More recently, the linkages between markets have increased over time (Baumöhl and Lyócsa 2014), causing them to experience greater contagion impacts from global turmoils (Mohti et al. 2019).

2.3. Institutional Setting Variables

Prior studies document that institutional settings variables4 restrict EM when investor protection is more robust (La Porta et al. 2002; Leuz et al. 2003; Williams et al. 2017). Chapple et al. (2018) find that corporate governance influences EM by requiring more frequent and accurate earnings guidance. Although the AEM constraint provided by institutional setting is greater in developed markets with greater governance (Leuz et al. 2003), questions remain on the level of constraint provided in frontier markets where oversight and governance is lower. To extend earlier studies, we examine the following four institutional settings variables: (1) minority (outside) investor rights, (2) legal enforcement, (3) disclosure regulations, and (4) analysts following.

2.3.1. Minority Investor Rights

Strong Minority Investor Rights limits firm insiders’ ability to acquire private control benefits (Enomoto et al. 2015; Leuz et al. 2003). El-Helaly et al. (2018) state that minority investors’ rights are significant determinants of EM on a country level. Atwi et al. (2017) note that investor rights are a significant concern for investors in developing markets as unchecked controlling shareholders’ power can lead to the expropriation of minority investor rights. Strong minority investor rights consequently reduce incentives to engage in AEM. Researchers highlight the role of governance as a factor associated with the rights of minority investors and results in higher quality financial reporting with a lower likelihood of qualified audit reports (Pucheta-Martínez and García-Meca 2014)
Following Haidar (2009), Minority Investor Rights data is sourced from the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index on the ’Strength of Investor Protection’ index. From the above, the first hypothesis (H1) is formalised as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1):
Greater minority investor rights constrains accruals earnings management.

2.3.2. Legal Enforcement

Legal Enforcement is often associated with a country’s judicial system’s efficacy and its enforcement of laws (Ippoliti et al. 2015). In environments with strong legal enforcement, firm audit quality is notably higher (Persakis and Iatridis 2016) and can substitute for weak rules as active and well-functioning courts provide recourse for investors abused by management (Hutchison 2002). Esty and Megginson (2003) note that in countries with weaker legal enforcement, legal risks increase, and governance’s focus shifts to deterring defaults. The degree of protection that investors receive in various jurisdictions depends on the characteristics of the legal rules themselves and the quality of legal enforcement (Kothari et al. 2012; La Porta et al. 1997). Due to their weak legal and enforcement environment around shareholders’ interests, emerging and frontier markets may not sufficiently protect shareholders’ interests (Ahmed et al. 2018; Ma et al. 2009). In a separate legal enforcement study, La Porta et al. (2002) and Chen et al. (2020) note that countries governed by civil laws provide investors with weaker legal rights,5 as civil law tends to be associated with lower financial development levels.
Following Leuz et al. (2003) and Enomoto et al. (2015), we calculate the degree of Legal Enforcement as the mean score across three legal variables: (1) the efficiency of the judicial system, (2) an assessment of the rule of law, and (3) the corruption index. World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators is the source for the first two variables; Transparency International provides the third. From the above, the second hypothesis (H2) is formalised:
Hypothesis 2 (H2):
Greater legal enforcement constrains accruals earnings management.

2.3.3. Disclosure Requirements

Corporate disclosure pertains to information asymmetry between investors and managers (Lobo and Zhou 2001); higher disclosure quality is negatively associated with EM. (Alzoubi 2016b). Lobo and Zhou (2001) hypothesised that it was more challenging to implement EM in countries with stricter disclosure regulations. Poor disclosure and financial opacity is common among companies in emerging markets (Fan et al. 2011). While Patel et al. (2002) find that transparency and disclosure in selective emerging markets have increased over time, Crittenden and Crittenden (2014) suggest poor disclosure may be even more pervasive within frontier markets.
We draw data from the World Bank’s ’Doing Business’ survey, which reports an Investor Protection Index. The index measures minority shareholders’ strength against a director’s misuse of corporate assets for personal gain. From the above, the third hypothesis (H3) is formalised:
Hypothesis 3 (H3):
Greater disclosure requirements constrains accruals earnings management.

2.3.4. Analysts Following

Analysts significantly influence investors’ and managements’ behaviour, as analysts’ forecast impacts corporate share price (Graham et al. 2005; Hsiao et al. 2016). To compose forecasts, analysts regularly track corporate financial statements, interact with managers directly, and raise questions on earnings data periodically (Yu 2008). Firms that fail to perform as analysts predict often experience stock price declines (Bozanic et al. 2019; Yu 2008). Chan et al. (2014) find a negative correlation between analysts following and AEM, indicating increased analysts following reduces AEM. Financial analysts may also play a role in expanding AEM because the pressure to meet or beat analysts’ forecasts may drive managers to manipulate earnings (Coën and Desfleurs 2016; Hong et al. 2014).
Due to the role analysts play in influencing management’s behaviour, analysts’ role in constraining AEM in frontier markets is also assessed. Analysts Following data is drawn from Datastream and calculated as the mean number of analysts following per firm-year in each country. From the above, the fourth hypothesis (H4) is formalised:
Hypothesis 4 (H4):
Greater analyst following constrains accruals earnings management.

2.4. Culture Effect

There has been much scholarly interest in how national culture explains individual behaviour and the systematic differences across nations (Chui et al. 2002; Doupnik and Tsakumis 2004; Hofstede 1980; Kwok and Tadesse 2006; Zhang 2018). These studies show that culture shapes individual values and influences behaviour. Furthermore, the studies reveal that when the perceived risk of negative repercussions is low, systematic exploitation of existing legal voids may spur illegal or immoral behaviours.
Khanna (2014) argues against the uniform application of management practices across geographies, markets, and cultures, as conditions6 differ enormously from place to place—particularly in heterogeneous frontier markets. Lessons garnered in one market do not necessarily transfer to other markets (Kutz and Bamford-Wade 2014); therefore, localisation or contextualised intelligence is required before lessons can be applied to unique settings (Arnold and Quelch 1998; Wiprächtiger et al. 2019). Consequently, cultural differences cannot be ignored when examining investors’ protection across countries (Stulz and Williamson 2003). Bao and Bao (2004) suggest that culture might contribute to the variation in earnings smoothing across countries. Motivated by the literature, this study investigates how the cultural variable of societal trust shapes how management prepares and reports financial information.

2.4.1. Societal Trust

In frontier markets where financial statement quality is questionable (Alfraih 2016), trust serves to connect information in an unbiased manner informally. Countries possessing relatively high trust levels tend to possess relatively low levels of corruption (Lin and Wu 2014). Guan et al. (2020) find a stronger relationship between firm-level commitment to credible disclosure and earnings forecasts in low-trust countries, suggesting that country-level societal trust relates to the effectiveness of firm-level credibility. Investors in high trust countries view these voluntary disclosures as more credible information. Insufficient societal trust may exacerbate moral hazards because of low social costs (Ho et al. 2020).
Following Papanastasopoulos and Tsiritakis (2015), data is obtained from the World Values Survey and based on the theory underpinning AEM and culture. Trust scores obtained are re-scaled from 0–10 in line with institutional variables. From the literature, the fifth hypothesis (H5) is introduced:
Hypothesis 5 (H5):
Greater societal trust constrains accruals earnings management.
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of institutional setting variables and the cultural variable of societal trust for each country in the study.

3. Research Design and Hypothesis Development

3.1. Sample and Data Selection

This study’s firm-level data is taken from Datastream for the years 2000 to 2017.7 Publicly listed (and delisted) firms were included to avoid survivorship bias. Financial institutions and utilities are excluded due to their unique regulatory environments. Countries experiencing hyperinflation were also removed.8 Eligible firms for the analysis must have at least three consecutive years of income statement and balance sheet data. As displayed in Table 2, the final sample consists of 22 frontier countries, 2509 firms, and 30,969 observations. The study uses an unbalanced data set due to differences in capital market development, country size, and firm entrances or exits. Vietnam has the most firm-year observations (3530), while Lebanon has the least (94). During the study period, firm-year observation increased annually, except for 2017, due to limited data availability. The industry segments in the study, Manufacturing, and Food products, were the most numerous (8551 and 6296 observations, respectively). Retail was the smallest segment in the study, with 302 firm-year observations.
Hayn (1995) was the first to evaluate earnings distribution as an assessment of EM evidence. Similarly, in Figure 1, we include a display of the distribution of mean net income scaled by total assets for each country in the study. The results show that the distribution of earnings near or below zero and, thus, left-skewed. Burgstahler and Dichev (1997) interpret a discontinuity at zero in the cross-sectional earnings distribution as evidence of misreported earnings. In examining the earnings distribution after the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), Gilliam et al. (2015) suggest that the lack of zero-earnings after SOX does not necessarily mean that earnings manipulation does not exist. The distribution displayed is consistent with organisations managing their taxable income by shifting income out of their taxable activities.

3.2. Accrual Earnings Management Detection Methods

As stated, to avoid reliance on a single AEM detection method, we apply three. The first measure follows Leuz et al. (2003). The second and third methods are adaptations of Yoon et al. (2006) and Kothari et al. (2005)’s methods. An outline of each method follows.

3.2.1. The Leuz Model Described

Leuz et al. (2003)’s AEM detection method comprises of three separate measures (AEM1, AEM2, and AEM3), which combine to form this study’s first detection method. The three measures combined form a single composite measure of an average of a firm’s scaled rank score per country per year by N, as per Lemma et al. (2019).9 The individual AEM values are calculated as per Equations (1), (3), and (4). The composite score is denoted as AEML.
AEM1 is the first measure of the composite score and is a measure of income smoothing. Firms engaged in income smoothing exhibit a lower standard deviation of earnings than a standard deviation of cash flow. A higher AEM1 value indicates a lower degree of EM. AEM1 is outlined as per Equation (1).
A E M 1 = σ ( O p e r I n c ) σ ( C F O )
where AEM1 is the ratio of the standard deviations of Operating income (OperInc) to cash flow from operations (CFO). Lagged total assets scale both values.
AEM2 measures the extent to which firms conceal shocks to their operating performances using accruals and is calculated as the correlation between change in accruals and change in CFO. Greater negative correlation between inputs indicates greater EM. The accrual input is calculated as per Equation (2), while Equation (3) outlines AEM2.
Accruals ( ACC ) = Δ C A i t Δ C a s h i t Δ C L i t Δ S T D i t Δ T P i t D e p i t
A E M 2 = ρ ( Δ A C C , Δ C F O )
where ACC is accruals, CA is total current assets, Cash is cash and cash equivalents, CL is total current liabilities, STD is the debt in the current portion of liabilities, TP is income tax payable, Dep is depreciation and amortisation. and Δ is the change operator. Following Leuz et al. (2003); Lemma et al. (2019), AEM2 is the Spearman correlation between ACC and CFO. Lagged total assets scale both values. The dependent and independent variables are briefly described above; details are in Appendix A Table A1.
AEM3 measures the extent to which firms mask their economic performance using accruals. This measure is calculated as the ratio of the absolute accruals to absolute CFO. Larger AEM3 values signify greater levels of EM. AEM3 is shown via Equation (4).
A E M 3 = | A C C | | C F O |
where | A C C | and | C F O | are the absolute values of accruals and cash flow from operations.

3.2.2. The Yoon Model Described

Our second detection model follows Yoon et al. (2006) and is denoted as AEMY. AEMY has been shown to outperform other residual dependant models in developing markets (Alareeni and Aljuaidi 2014; Islam et al. 2011; Yoon et al. 2006). This model estimates total accruals (TA) as per Equation (5). AEMY is calculated by subtracting the fitted accrual values from total accruals, as expressed by Equation (6).
T A i R E V i t = β 1 Δ R E V i t Δ R E C i t R E V i t + β 2 Δ E X P i t Δ P A Y i t R E V i t + β 3 D E P i t + P E N i t R E V i t + ϵ
A E M i t ε i t = T A i t R E V i t 1 N A i t β ^ 1 1 Δ R E V i t Δ R E C i t R E V i t + β ^ 2 Δ E X P i t Δ P A Y i t R E V i t + β ^ 3 D E P i t + P E N i t R E V i t
where REV, REC, EXP, PAY, and PEN are net sales revenue, trade receivables, expenses,10 trade payable, and retirement benefits expense, respectively. Much like Sloan (1996) and Lee and Lee (2015), this study ranks accruals per country per year by N.

3.2.3. The Kothari Model Described

The third AEM detection method follows Kothari et al. (2005)’s performance-matched approach and is denoted AEMK. This method is both well-specified and powerful at estimating discretionary accruals (Cai et al. 2020), as it considers a company’s past and present economic performance. To begin, each year and every two-digit industry is estimated as per Equation (7), then the coefficients from Equation (8) are used to calculate the non-discretionary accruals (NDA). NDA is subtracted from total accruals (TA) to arrive at discretionary accruals.
T A i t A i t 1 = β 1 1 A i t 1 + β 2 Δ R E V i t Δ A R i t A i t 1 + β 3 P P E i t A i t 1 + β 4 R O A i t 1 + ε i t
A E M i t ε i t = T A i t R E V i t 1 NDA i , t = β ^ 0 + β ^ 1 1 A i , t 1 + β ^ 2 Δ REV i , t + β ^ 3 P P E i , t + β ^ 4 R O A i , t
where A is total assets (used to proxy for firm size), AR is accounts receivable, PPE is property, plant, and equipment, and ROA is the return on assets. Subscripts i and t refer to firm i and year t, respectively. Additionally, this study ranks accruals per country per year by N, to arrive at AEMK.

3.3. Regression Models

To test the hypotheses, firm-level data is used to analyse the link between AEM, institutional setting variables, and societal trust. Equations (12)–(14) outline the regressions models used to examine AEM relationship to the study’s variables.
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Analyst Following ) + ϵ
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Disclosure Index ) + ϵ
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Legal Enforcement ) + ϵ
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Minority Investor Rights ) + ϵ
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Societal Trust ) + ϵ
A E M L , A E M Y , A E M K = β 0 + β 1 ( Analyst Following ) + β 2 ( Disclosure Index ) + β 3 ( Legal Enforcement ) + β 4 ( Minority Investor Rights ) + β 5 ( Societal Trust ) + ϵ
Equations (12) and (13) are single regression models, whereas Equation (14) is a multiple regression model inclusive of variables from the earlier regressions.

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents the summary statistics of key variables. Mean scores for AEML, AEMY, and AEMK, variables are fairly similar, yet their standard deviation exhibits greater dispersion at 0.17671, 0.2890, and 0.2891, respectively. Mean scores for the four investor protection variables of Analysts Following, Disclosure Index, Legal Enforcement, and Minority Investor Rights are 5.17, 6.45, 4.69, and 5.70, respectively. The stability of the four anterior variables (as noted by their low standard deviation compared to the mean) is a common property in survey-based data (Callen et al. 2011). The cultural variable of Societal Trust has a mean score of 3.4, with a standard deviation of 2.03.
Table 4 presents the correlation table of key metrics. Consistent with expectations, we find Disclosure Index, Legal environment, Analysts Following, and Minority Investor Rights negatively correlated with all AEM detection proxies. The level of Societal Trust shows a positive relationship with the AEM proxies. To further understand the relationship between the AEM proxies and the institutional settings variables, these variables are regressed in the following section.

4.2. Regression Results

We hypothesise that the effects of AEM are moderated by investor protection variables and greater societal trust. Negative coefficients are expected when variables provide AEM constraint. Panels A. B, and C of Table 5 display the results of the AEML, AEMY, and AEMK models, respectively, via Pooled OLS regression. Coefficient signs for the individual regressions tests are mostly analogous to the multiple regression test; thus, only the latter results are described.
As predicted, the coefficients for Disclosure Index, Legal Enforcement, and Minority Investor Rights are negative and support the hypothesis that AEM is less prevalent when these variables increase. Analysts Following failed to show significance when tested collectively, suggesting it does not constrain AEM. Similar to the results from Table 4, the Societal Trust coefficient is positive, indicating it is not instrumental in constraining AEM activity. The statistical significance of the coefficients in the regression outputs with the AEM detection proxies point to the variables’ appropriateness for further analysis.

5. Robustness Checks

To cross-check initial findings, Equation (14) is reexamined using both quantile regression and two-stage least squares (2SLS). In the event of heterogeneity, then quantile regression will provide a more comprehensive view of the relationship between variables through the effects of independent variables across quantiles of the response distribution (Ma and Pohlman 2008). Ma and Pohlman (2008) further suggest that if the distribution is not Gaussian but fat-tailed, quantile regression estimates will be more robust and efficient than the conditional mean estimates. The use of 2SLS follows Leuz et al. (2003). The authors note that institutional factors are often complementary, and thus, to control for the potential impact of other factors and disentanglement from investor protection’s direct effect is difficult. The application of 2SLS estimation addresses this concern.11 Table 6 presents the additional estimations and the original Pooled OLS regression for ease of comparison.
2SLS regression results are largely consistent with Pooled OLS regression. Analysts Following, Disclosure Index. Legal Enforcement, and Minority Investor Rights continue to show an inverse relationship with all three AEM detection methods. A slight difference is noted in the Quantile regression method, where Analyst Following only shows significance under the Yoon and Kothari detection methods. While not conclusive, preliminary results suggest that analysts influence accounting earnings and inhibit the practice of AEM. Previous studies suggest that EM practices increase during optimistic moments, yet firms monitored by analysts are more prone to restrain this behaviour. Our findings aligns with Miranda et al. (2018); Yu (2008), who also find greater analysts following to constrain EM activity yet is at odds with Enomoto et al. (2015)’s mixed market study where a similarly significant relationship was not found.
The positive relationship between Societal Trust and the three AEM detection proxies is contrary to expectations, and Chen et al. (2019) and Dong et al. (2018)’s China-based studies. Of note, however, is that greater media coverage was instrumental in curbing corporate misconduct in their studies. Furthermore, Cui (2017) states that social trust’s effect depends on the institution level, which weakens with institutional strength.
Researchers suggest that western guidelines and recommendations have dramatically transformed developing country’s visage via trade and institutional development (Bhattacharyya 2012; Reddy et al. 2013). Cornett et al. (2008) suggest that if institutional factors impact earnings and performance, then reported performance might be partially cosmetic, requiring the control for performance measures on the influence of managerial choice. Accordingly, this study’s second robustness check reexamines Equation (14) with the addition of firm and country-level control variables. Results of this second robustness test are presented in Table 7. Kim and Yi (2006) state that the use of cross-country data may raise concerns over potential endogeneity. Country-wide, macroeconomic factors jointly influence the extent of AEM and institutional factors. Following Saona and Muro (2018), this study posits that AEM cannot be adequately analysed unless its internal and external determinants are considered.
Enomoto et al. (2018) suggest that managers’ opportunistic behaviour is lower under more developed financial systems because higher quality accounting information is necessary. Conversely, Saona and Muro (2018) find that managers have less need for EM in less developed and less competitive markets. As financial market development is higher in countries with higher GDP per capita (Deltuvaite and Sinevičiene (2014)), positively associated with economic growth (Levine et al. 2000) and growth significantly impacted by trade liberalisation (Hye et al. 2016), these are controlled for via GDP per capita, GDP growth, and Trade Openness. Also included is a dichotomous variable if the country has adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for it has been associated with increased earnings quality and decreased AEM (Capkun et al. 2016; Martens et al. 2020; Wijayana and Gray 2019).
Firm-level variables also exhibit linkages in developing markets where owner-agency problems increase (Hoskisson et al. 2013). Chung and Zhang (2011) suggest that institutional shareholders can better analyse firm performance and detect financial misreporting, much like Big-4 auditors are more apt to spot internal control weaknesses (Kanagaretnam et al. 2016). This study, therefore, includes a dichotomous variable if the firm employs a Big-4 auditor. Capital structure and company growth opportunities are also items controlled for via firm leverage and book-to-market ratios. When firms maintain relatively low debt levels, managers engage in active opportunistic manipulation of financial statements, whereas relatively high debt constrains EM (Saona and Muro 2018). This study also controls for firm size as size may affect corporate governance characteristics and financial performance (Shawtari et al. 2016). Time and industry dummies variables are also included to control for possible time and industry effects.
The second robustness test highlights the relationship between Analysts Following and the Yoon and Kothari AEM proxies. Analyst Following now exhibits significance across all three regression methods, suggesting earlier results may have suffered from omitted variable bias due to negative cofounders or extreme outliers.12 The inverse relationship between AEM and Disclosure index and Legal Enforcement remains unchanged; however, Minority Investors Rights fails to show a relationship under quantile estimation. The level of Societal Trust also continues to remain positive and significant.
Country-level control variables of GDP per capita, GDP growth show a significantly negative relationship with AEM activity, suggesting that managers in wealthier frontier countries and firms from countries with greater growth engage in less AEM activity. In contrast, Dimitras et al. (2015) note that AEM activity is not connected to GDP changes, Chen et al. (2020) find that firms operating in areas where GDP is lower than adjacent areas, engage in more EM.
Firm-level control variables show firm size is inversely related to AEM activity; smaller firms engage in more AEM activity than larger firms. This is consistent with Siregar and Utama (2008) and Dimitras et al. (2015), yet is at odds with Barton and Simko (2002) and Ali et al. (2015), who find that information asymmetry in large firms motivates earnings manipulation. Our Big-4 auditor finding is consistent with findings from Krishnan (2003) and Alzoubi (2016a), who suggest large auditors have greater capital, technology, human resources, and experiences from which higher audit quality flows and EM is constrained. The leverage coefficient was generally positive but not always significant, thus inconclusive. Leverage findings align with Anagnostopoulou and Tsekrekos (2017), who find leverage had no significant effect on income-increasing AEM.

6. Conclusions

Using a large sample of 2509 firms across 22 frontier market countries from 2000 to 2017, we developed hypotheses relating to institutional settings on AEM. Applying AEM detection models from Leuz et al. (2003); Yoon et al. (2006), and Kothari et al. (2005) on several regression models, our results extend previous research (Leuz et al. 2003; Shen and Chih 2005) by providing evidence that increased disclosure and greater legal enforcement are negatively associated with AEM. We also find that as the number of analysts following a firm increases, AEM decreases when examined with the addition of country and firm-level control variables. Novel to this study and contrary to the expected hypotheses is the inability of societal trust to influence AEM activity. Also notable was that larger firms were found to engage in less AEM than smaller firms. This latter finding is consistent with Kothari et al. (2005) and Scholtens and Kang (2013) and suggests stronger internal control systems and reputation concerns are extant in larger firms. Additionally, consistent with Watts and Zimmerman (1986) and Hoang and Phung (2019), leverage was positively related to AEM, suggesting managers may manage earnings to avoid debt covenant violations. This study’s findings also avows De Jong et al. (2014)’s work by providing evidence that firms with superior value showed no greater propensity to manage earnings than those with lower values, advancing the argument that AEM is value-destroying.
The implications of the findings are as follows. First, social norm theory, which suggests that individuals are driven to match what they perceive to be the social norm (Festinger 1954), failed to play a role in reducing AEM, as shown by the insignificance of the societal trust variable as employed. Inference from societal trust’s failure suggests informal institutions are less influential as control monitors in markets of weak governance and where repercussions for EM behaviour are few. An alternative measure of social trust that controls for the impact of economic development, market development, education, and transportation may, however, produce different results. A second implication from the findings is that formal control monitors of management behaviour is more influential than informal institutions. This finding is shown by analysts’ role in providing oversight and discipline on management, and management’s tendency to abridge AEM activity when the number of analysts following a firm increases. Third, increased economic growth brings about financial development and limits AEM, suggesting that the need to hide poor economic performance is greater in times of low economic growth. Conversely, there is no strong incentive to exercise discretion on earnings in times of stable economic growth. Fifth, while the scope of our study is limited to frontier markets, the results herein, complemented by the growing internationalisation of capital markets, show that distortions in AEM practices merit further segregated market research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.M.; Methodology, W.M.; Software, W.M.; Validation, W.M.; Formal analysis, W.M.; Investigation, W.M. ; Resources, W.M.; Data curation, W.M.; Writing—original draft preparation, W.M.; Writing—review and editing, W.M., P.Y. and M.S.; Visualization, W.M.; Supervision, P.Y. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in from Thomson Reuters Datastream.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Country and Firm Variable Description.
Table A1. Country and Firm Variable Description.
VariableDescription
Firm-level
AssetsLong-term assets and items of both current and non-current assets)
Accounts ReceivablesGross receivables less allowance for doubtful accounts
RevenueRevenues from the sale of merchandise goods, manufactured products and services,
Property Plant & EquipmentProperty/Plant/Equipment, Total items assumed to be used for operations
Return on AssetsMeasure of management’s effectiveness in using assets to generate earnings. Generally obtained using Ordinary Profit , divided by Total Assets
Trade ReceivablesTrade Receivables, receivables from the sale of merchandise or services provided to affiliates or other related companies
ExpenseSelling/General/Administrative Expense, the operating costs of running a business other than the costs of readying products or services for sale
Trade payablesTrade Payable, payables for the receipt of merchandise or services provided to affiliates or other related companies
PensionPension, all incomes and expenses associated with the company’s pension plan.
Current assetsTotal Current Assets, the sum of Cash and Short Term Investment, Total Receivables, Net Total Inventory, Prepaid Expenses, and Other Current Assets,
CashCash and cash equivalent
Current LiabilitiesTotal Current Liabilities, liabilities incurred from operating activities and expected to be due within one year.
Short term debtShort-Term Debt, short-term bank borrowings. It also represents notes payable that are issued to suppliers and other short-term interest-bearing liabilities
Taxes payableTaxes Payable, represents changes in taxes payable during the period.
DeprecationDepreciation and amortisation
AccrualsAccruals, measured as the change in current assets minus the change in current liabilities minus depreciation expense as per Dechow et al. (1995)
Cash flow from operationsCash From Operating Activities
Firm Control Variable
Analyst FollowingCalculated as the natural log plus one of the number of analysts following a stock. Source: Thomson Reuters Datastream
Book to market ratioCalculated as the quotient of the book value of equity by the market value of equity
LeverageCalculated as the quotient of total assets by total liabilities
SizeCalculated as the natural logarithm of the market value of equity
Year DummiesYear Dummy variables for each year in the study
Industry DummiesIndustry dummy variables for each industry in the study
Country-Level
Legal EnforcementSource: WDI’s Governance Indicators and Transparency International
Disclosure RequirementsSource: WDI’s Worldwide Extent of Business Disclosure Index.
Minority Investors RightsSource: World Economic Forum Global Corruption Index on the Strength of Investor Protection
Societal TrustSource: World Values Survey
Country Control Variables
Big-4The percentage of firms that employ a Big4 auditing firm
IFRS adoptionA dichotomous variable of 1 if the country has adopted IFRS, 0 otherwise. Source: IFRS.org
GDP per CapitaLog of GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$). Source: WDI.
GDP growth rateRate of change in real GDP: Source
Trade opennessTrade openness 100 (Exports + imports/GDP. Source: WDI

References

  1. Ahmed, Farhan, Afzal Ahmed, and Sahabia Kanwal. 2018. Mergers and acquisitions in selected frontier markets of Asia. Signifikan: Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi 7: 123–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alareeni, Bahaaeddin, and Omar Aljuaidi. 2014. The modified jones and yoon models in detecting earnings management in palestine exchange (pex). International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 9: 1472. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfraih, Mishari M. 2016. Have financial statements lost their relevance? Empirical evidence from the frontier market of Kuwait. Journal of Advances in Management Research 13: 225–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ali, Usman, Muhammad Noor, Muhammad Kashif Khurshid, and Akhtar Mahmood. 2015. Impact of firm size on earnings management: A study of textile sector of Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management 7: 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Alzoubi, Ebraheem Saleem Salem. 2016a. Audit quality and earnings management: Evidence from jordan. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 17: 170–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alzoubi, Ebraheem Saleem Salem. 2016b. Disclosure quality and earnings management: Evidence from jordan. Accounting Research Journal 29: 429–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anagnostopoulou, Seraina C., and Andrianos E Tsekrekos. 2017. The effect of financial leverage on real and accrual-based earnings management. Accounting and Business Research 47L: 191–236. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arnold, David J., and John A. Quelch. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. MIT Sloan Management Review 40: 7. [Google Scholar]
  9. Atwi, Leila, Assem Safieddine, and Sheridan Titman. 2017. Investor protection and governance in the valuation of emerging markets investments. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 29: 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bao, Ben-Hsien, and Da-Hsien Bao. 2004. Income smoothing, earnings quality and firm valuation. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 31: 1525–57. [Google Scholar]
  11. Barton, Jan, and Paul J Simko. 2002. The balance sheet as an earnings management constraint. The Accounting Review 77: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baumöhl, Eduard, and Štefan Lyócsa. 2014. Volatility and dynamic conditional correlations of worldwide emerging and frontier markets. Economic Modelling 38: 175–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bekiris, Fivos V., and Leonidas C. Doukakis. 2011. Corporate governance and accruals earnings management. Managerial and Decision Economics 32: 439–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Berger, Dave, Kuntara Pukthuanthong, and J. Jimmy Yang. 2011. International diversification with frontier markets. Journal of Financial Economics 101: 227–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bhattacharyya, Sambit. 2012. Trade liberalization and institutional development. Journal of Policy Modeling 34: 253–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bley, Jorg, and Mohsen Saad. 2012. Idiosyncratic risk and expected returns in frontier markets: Evidence from gcc. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 22: 538–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boonlert-U-Thai, Kriengkrai, Gary K. Meek, and Sandeep Nabar. 2006. Earnings attributes and investor-protection: International evidence. The International Journal of Accounting 41: 327–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bozanic, Zahn, Jing Chen, and Michael J. Jung. 2019. Analyst contrarianism. Journal of Financial Reporting 4: 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Burgstahler, David, and Ilia Dichev. 1997. Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24: 99–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cai, Guilong, Wenfei Li, and Zhenyang Tang. 2020. Religion and the method of earnings management: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 161: 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Callen, Jeffrey L., Mindy Morel, and Grant Richardson. 2011. Do culture and religion mitigate earnings management? Evidence from a cross-country analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 8: 103–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Capkun, Vedran, Dan Collins, and Thomas Jeanjean. 2016. The effect of ias/ifrs adoption on earnings management (smoothing): A closer look at competing explanations. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 35: 352–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chan, Lilian H., Kevin C. W. Chen, Tai Yuan Chen, and Yangxin Yu. 2014. Substitution between real and accruals-based earnings management after voluntary adoption of compensation clawback provisions. The Accounting Review 90: 147–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chapple, Larelle, Keitha Dunstan, and Thu Phuong Truong. 2018. Corporate governance and management earnings forecast behaviour. Pacific Accounting Review 30: 222–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, Clara Chia Sheng, Yan-Yu Chou, and Peihwang Wei. 2020. Country factors in earnings management of adr firms. Finance Research Letters 32: 101146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, Mei-Ping, Pei-Fen Chen, and Chien-Chiang Lee. 2014. Frontier stock market integration and the global financial crisis. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 29: 84–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Shihua, Wanying Cai, and Khalil Jebran. 2019. Does social trust mitigate earnings management? Evidence from china. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 55: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, Wei, Paul Hribar, and Samuel Melessa. 2018. Incorrect inferences when using residuals as dependent variables. Journal of Accounting Research 56: 751–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Xia, Qiang Cheng, Ying Hao, and Qiang Liu. 2020. Gdp growth incentives and earnings management: Evidence from china. Review of Accounting Studies 25: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chui, Andy C. W., Alison E. Lloyd, and Chuck C. Y. Kwok. 2002. The determination of capital structure: Is national culture a missing piece to the puzzle? Journal of International Business Studies 33: 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chung, Kee H., and Hao Zhang. 2011. Corporate governance and institutional ownership. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46: 247–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Coën, A., and A. Desfleurs. 2016. Another look at financial analysts’ forecasts accuracy: Recent evidence from eastern european frontier markets. In Handbook of Frontier Markets. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 171–89. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cornett, Marcia Millon, Alan J. Marcus, and Hassan Tehranian. 2008. Corporate governance and pay-for-performance: The impact of earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics 87: 357–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Crittenden, Carl A., and William F. Crittenden. 2014. The accounting profession’s role in corporate governance in frontier markets: A research agenda. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies 5: 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Cui, Wei. 2017. Social trust, institution, and economic growth: Evidence from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 53: 1243–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Jong, Abe, Gerard Mertens, Marieke van der Poel, and Ronald van Dijk. 2014. How does earnings management influence investor’s perceptions of firm value? Survey evidence from financial analysts. Review of Accounting Studies 19: 606–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dechow, Patricia M., Richard G. Sloan, and Amy P. Sweeney. 1995. Detecting earnings management. Accounting Review 70: 193–225. [Google Scholar]
  38. Deltuvaitė, Vilma, and Lina Sinevičienė. 2014. Research on the relationship between the structure of financial system and economic development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 156: 533–37. [Google Scholar]
  39. Dimitras, Augustinos I., Maria I. Kyriakou, and George Iatridis. 2015. Financial crisis, gdp variation and earnings management in Europe. Research in International Business and Finance 34: 338–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dong, Wang, Hongling Han, Yun Ke, and Kam C. Chan. 2018. Social trust and corporate misconduct: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 151: 539–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Doupnik, Timothy S., and George T. Tsakumis. 2004. A critical review of tests of gray’s theory of cultural relevance and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 1. [Google Scholar]
  42. El-Helaly, Moataz, Nermeen F Shehata, and Reem El-Sherif. 2018. National corporate governance, gmi ratings and earnings management. Asian Review of Accounting 26: 373–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Enomoto, Masahiro, Fumihiko Kimura, and Tomoyasu Yamaguchi. 2015. Accrual-based and real earnings management: An international comparison for investor protection. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics 11: 183–98. [Google Scholar]
  44. Enomoto, Masahiro, Fumihiko Kimura, and Tomoyasu Yamaguchi. 2018. A cross-country study on the relationship between financial development and earnings management. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 29: 166–94. [Google Scholar]
  45. Esty, Benjamin C., and William L Megginson. 2003. Creditor rights, enforcement, and debt ownership structure: Evidence from the global syndicated loan market. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38: 37–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fan, Joseph P. H., K. C. John Wei, and Xinzhong Xu. 2011. Corporate finance and governance in emerging markets: A selective review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Corporate Finance 17: 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Festinger, Leon. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7: 117–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gilliam, Thomas A., Frank Heflin, and Jeffrey S. Paterson. 2015. Evidence that the zero-earnings discontinuity has disappeared. Journal of Accounting and Economics 60: 117–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Girard, Eric, and Amit Sinha. 2008. Risk and return in the next frontier. Journal of Emerging Market Finance 7: 43–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Graham, John R., Campbell R. Harvey, and Shiva Rajgopal. 2005. The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 40: 3–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Guan, Yuyan, Gerald J. Lobo, Albert Tsang, and Xiangang Xin. 2020. Societal trust and management earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 95: 149–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guesmi, Khaled, and Duc Khuong Nguyen. 2011. How strong is the global integration of emerging market regions? An empirical assessment. Economic Modelling 28: 2517–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Haidar, Jamal Ibrahim. 2009. Investor protections and economic growth. Economics Letters 103: 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Hayn, Carla. 1995. The information content of losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20: 125–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ho, Kung-Cheng, Huang-Ping Yen, Yan Gu, and Lisi Shi. 2020. Does societal trust make firms more trustworthy? Emerging Markets Review 42: 100674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hoang, Khanh Mai Thi, and Thu Anh Phung. 2019. The effect of financial leverage on real and accrual-based earnings management in vietnamese firms. Economics & Sociology 12: 299–333. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do american theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9: 42–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hong, Yongtao, Fariz Huseynov, and Wei Zhang. 2014. Earnings management and analyst following: A simultaneous equations analysis. Financial Management 43: 355–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hoskisson, Robert E, Mike Wright, Igor Filatotchev, and Mike W Peng. 2013. Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies 50: 1295–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Hsiao, Daniel F., Yan Hu, and Jerry W. Lin. 2016. The earnings management opportunity for us oil and gas firms during the 2011 arab spring event. Pacific Accounting Review 28: 71–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hutchison, Michael M. 2002. European banking distress and emu: Institutional and macroeconomic risks. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 104: 365–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hye, Qazi Muhammad Adnan, Shahida Wizarat, and Wee-Yeap Lau. 2016. The impact of trade openness on economic growth in China: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business 3: 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. InvestmentFrontier. 2017. Frontier Stock Market Correlations for 2017—Investment Frontier. Available online: https://www.investmentfrontier.com/2017/06/05/frontier-stock-market-correlations-2017/ (accessed on 26 July 2020).
  64. Ippoliti, Roberto, Alessandro Melcarne, and Giovanni B Ramello. 2015. The impact of judicial efficiency on entrepreneurial action: A European perspective. Economic Notes: Review of Banking, Finance and Monetary Economics 44: 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Islam, Md Aminul, Ruhani Ali, and Zamri Ahmad. 2011. Is modified jones model effective in detecting earnings management? Evidence from a developing economy. International Journal of Economics and Finance 3: 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Jones, Jennifer J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Review 29: 193–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran, Gerald J. Lobo, Chen Ma, and Jian Zhou. 2016. National culture and internal control material weaknesses around the world. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 31: 28–50. [Google Scholar]
  68. Khanna, Tarun. 2014. Contextual intelligence. Harvard Business Review 32: 58–68. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kim, Jeong-Bon, and Byungcherl Charlie Sohn. 2011. Real versus Accrual-Based Earnings Management and Implied Cost of Equity Capital. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1297938 (accessed on 26 July 2020).
  70. Kim, Jeong-Bon, and Cheong H. Yi. 2006. Ownership structure, business group affiliation, listing status, and earnings management: Evidence from Korea. Contemporary Accounting Research 23: 427–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kothari, S. P., Natalie Mizik, and Sugata Roychowdhury. 2012. Managing for the Moment: The Role of Real Activity versus Accruals Earnings Management in Seo Valuation. Technical Report, Working Paper. Available online: https://olin.wustl.edu/docs/Faculty/ROYCHOWDHURY.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  72. Kothari, Sagar P., Andrew J. Leone, and Charles E. Wasley. 2005. Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 39: 163–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Krishnan, Gopal V. 2003. Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22: 109–26. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kutz, Matthew R., and Anita Bamford-Wade. 2014. Approaches to Managing Organizational Diversity and Innovation. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 579–98. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kwok, Chuck C. Y., and Solomon Tadesse. 2006. National culture and financial systems. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 227–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. The Journal of Finance 57: 1147–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W Vishny. 1997. Legal determinants of external finance. The Journal of Finance 52: 1131–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lang, Mark, and Mark Maffett. 2011. Transparency and liquidity uncertainty in crisis periods. Journal of Accounting and Economics 52: 101–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lee, Hsien-Li, and Hua Lee. 2015. Effect of information disclosure and transparency ranking system on mispricing of accruals of Taiwanese firms. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 44: 445–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lemma, Tesfaye Taddese, Ayalew Lulseged, Mthokozisi Mlilo, and Minga Negash. 2019. Political stability, political rights and earnings management: Some international evidence. Accounting Research Journal 33: 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leuz, Christian, Dhananjay Nanda, and Peter D. Wysocki. 2003. Earnings management and investor protection: An international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics 69: 505–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Levine, Ross, Norman Loayza, and Thorsten Beck. 2000. Financial intermediation and growth: Causality and causes. Journal of Monetary Economics 46: 31–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Lin, Fengyi, and Sheng-Fu Wu. 2014. Comparison of cosmetic earnings management for the developed markets and emerging markets: Some empirical evidence from the united states and Taiwan. Economic Modelling 36: 466–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lobo, Gerald J., and Jian Zhou. 2001. Disclosure quality and earnings management. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 8: 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ma, Jianyu, Jose A. Pagan, and Yun Chu. 2009. Abnormal returns to mergers and acquisitions in ten Asian stock markets. International Journal of Business 14: 235–50. [Google Scholar]
  86. Ma, Lingjie, and Larry Pohlman. 2008. Return forecasts and optimal portfolio construction: A quantile regression approach. The European Journal of Finance 14: 409–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ma, Shiguang, and Liangbo Ma. 2017. The association of earnings quality with corporate performance. Pacific Accounting Review 29: 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Man, Chi Keung, and Brossa Wong. 2013. Corporate governance and earnings management: A survey of literature. Journal of Applied Business Research. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3003835 (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  89. Martens, Wil, Prem W. S. Yapa, and Maryam Safari. 2020. The impact of financial statement comparability on earnings management: Evidence from frontier markets. International Journal of Financial Studies 8: 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Miranda, Kleber F., Marcio A. V. Machado, and Luciana A. F. Macedo. 2018. Investor sentiment and earnings management: Does analysts’ monitoring matter? RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 19: 2–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Mohti, Wahbeeah, Andreia Dionísio, Isabel Vieira, and Paulo Ferreira. 2019. Financial contagion analysis in frontier markets: Evidence from the us subprime and the eurozone debt crises. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 525: 1388–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mostafa, Wael. 2017. The impact of earnings management on the value relevance of earnings: Empirical evidence from egypt. Managerial Auditing Journal 32: 50–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. MSCI. 2020. Msci Frontier Markets Index. Available online: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/f9354b32-04ac-4c7e-b76e-460848afe026 (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  94. Odell, Jamieson, and Usman Ali. 2016. Esg investing in emerging and frontier markets. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 28: 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  95. Pae, Jinhan. 2005. Expected accrual models: The impact of operating cash flows and reversals of accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 24: 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Papanastasopoulos, Georgios, and Emmanuel Tsiritakis. 2015. The accrual anomaly in Europe: The role of accounting distortions. International Review of Financial Analysis 41: 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Patel, Sandeep A, Amra Balic, and Liliane Bwakira. 2002. Measuring transparency and disclosure at firm-level in emerging markets. Emerging Markets Review 3: 325–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Persakis, Anthony, and George Emmanuel Iatridis. 2016. Audit quality, investor protection and earnings management during the financial crisis of 2008: An international perspective. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 41: 73–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pincus, Morton, Shivaram Rajgopal, and Mohan Venkatachalam. 2007. The accrual anomaly: International evidence. The Accounting Review 82: 169–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pucheta-Martínez, María Consuelo, and Emma García-Meca. 2014. Institutional investors on boards and audit committees and their effects on financial reporting quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review 22: 347–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Reddy, Kotapati Srinivasa, Vinay Kumar Nangia, and Rajat Agrawal. 2013. Indian economic-policy reforms, bank mergers, and lawful proposals: The ex-ante and ex-post ‘lookup’. Journal of Policy Modeling 35: 601–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Reimann, Mathias. 2000. Beyond national systems: A comparative law for the international age. Tulane Law Review 75: 1103. [Google Scholar]
  103. Saona, Paolo, and Laura Muro. 2018. Firm-and country-level attributes as determinants of earnings management: An analysis for Latin American firms. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54: 2736–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Scholtens, Bert, and Feng-Ching Kang. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and earnings management: Evidence from Asian economies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20: 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shawtari, Fekri Ali, Milad Abdelnabi Salem, Hafezali Iqbal Hussain, Omar Alaeddin, and Omer Bin Thabit. 2016. Corporate governance characteristics and valuation: Inferences from quantile regression. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science 21: 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shen, Chung-Hua, and Hsiang-Lin Chih. 2005. Investor protection, prospect theory, and earnings management: An international comparison of the banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance 29: 2675–97. [Google Scholar]
  107. Siregar, Sylvia Veronica, and Sidharta Utama. 2008. Type of earnings management and the effect of ownership structure, firm size, and corporate-governance practices: Evidence from Indonesia. The International Journal of Accounting 43: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sloan, Richard G. 1996. Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? Accounting Review 71: 289–315. [Google Scholar]
  109. Sohn, Byungcherl Charlie. 2016. The effect of accounting comparability on the accrual-based and real earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 35: 513–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Stulz, Rene M., and Rohan Williamson. 2003. Culture, openness, and finance. Journal of Financial Economics 70: 313–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Subramanyam, K. R. 1996. The pricing of discretionary accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22: 249–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Tang, HuiWen, Anlin Chang, and Chong-Chuo Chen. 2013. Insider trading, accrual abuse, and corporate governance in emerging markets—Evidence from Taiwan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 24: 132–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, Yacan, Yu Wang, Luyao Xie, and Huiyu Zhou. 2018. Impact of perceived uncertainty on public acceptability of congestion charging: An empirical study in China. Sustainability 11: 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Watts, Ross L., and Jerold L. Zimmerman. 1986. Impact of perceived uncertainty on public acceptability of congestion charging: An empirical study in China. In Positive Accounting Theory. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hill, Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=928677 (accessed on 2 October 2020).
  115. Wijayana, Singgih, and Sidney J Gray. 2019. Institutional factors and earnings management in the Asia-Pacific: Is ifrs adoption making a difference? Management International Review 59: 307–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Williams, C., A. Colovic, and J. Zhu. 2017. Earnings management involves using managerial discretion to distort firm financial performance. Journal of World Business 52: 798–808. [Google Scholar]
  117. Wiprächtiger, David, Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy, Roger Moser, and Tuhin Sengupta. 2019. Access-based business model innovation in frontier markets: Case study of shared mobility in timor-leste. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 143: 224–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wu, Shih-Wei, Fengyi Lin, and Wenchang Fang. 2012. Earnings management and investor’s stock return. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 48: 129–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Xie, Biao, Wallace N. Davidson III, and Peter J. DaDalt. 2003. Earnings management and corporate governance: The role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance 9: 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yoon, Soon Suk, Gary Miller, and Pornsit Jiraporn. 2006. Earnings management vehicles for korean firms. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 17: 85–109. [Google Scholar]
  121. Yu, Fang Frank. 2008. Analyst coverage and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics 88: 245–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhang, Joseph H. 2018. Accounting comparability, audit effort, and audit outcomes. Contemporary Accounting Research 35: 245–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Zhu, Tingting, Meiting Lu, Yaowen Shan, and Yuanlong Zhang. 2015. Accrual-based and real activity earnings management at the back door: Evidence from Chinese reverse mergers. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 35: 317–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1
Frontier market median correlation with US and EU markets are 0.54 and 0.39, respectively (InvestmentFrontier 2017).
2
Table 1 provides a breakdown of this study’s respective countries’ correlation figures with US and European (EU) markets.
3
As opposed to the cash component of income.
4
examples include: investor protection, political risks, firm and, management factors, laws, market mechanisms, and regulations.
5
relative to those governed by common law.
6
institutional character, physical geography, market dynamics, infrastructure, and educational norms.
7
Data was taken in USD for all years and countries.
8
Serbia, a frontier market country, was excluded due to periods of hyperinflation.
9
scaling the score neutralises the effect of country size on the aggregate measure of AEM.
10
The sum of cost of goods sold and selling and general administrative expenses, excluding non-cash expenses.
11
Dubin-Wu-Hausman endogeneity test rejects that null of the instrument variables beings exogenous at an alpha of 0.10.
12
Multicollinearity was ruled out via a variance inflation factor (VIF) test showing factors less than 2.2 for all AEM proxies.
Figure 1. Distribution of Net Income scaled by Assets by Country.
Figure 1. Distribution of Net Income scaled by Assets by Country.
Economies 09 00017 g001
Table 1. Investor Protection, Trust, Macro Factors, and Market Correlation Table.
Table 1. Investor Protection, Trust, Macro Factors, and Market Correlation Table.
CountryMinority Investor RightsLegal EnforcementDisclosure IndexAnalyst FollowingSocietal TrustGDP Change (%)GPD per CapitaInflation Change (%)Trade OpennessBig-4 Ratio (%)Correlation to US MarketsCorrelation to EU Markets
Argentina6.03.372.04.12.5945514.433.140.10.300.40
Bahrain4.86.085.56.94.622,6492.0149.40.50.150.16
Bangladesh5.34.160.04.83.67347.237.813.7−0.05−0.19
Bulgaria7.25.11013.35.13.363063.5115.963.20.150.15
Croatia6.55.634.53.91.413,5351.985.995.80.360.25
Estonia5.57.980.68.13.215,2673.2145.436.90.180.33
Jordan3.75.544.92.64.533533.7120.638.20.180.09
Kazakhstan6.74.0911.87.75.679078.575.978.10.400.30
Kenya4.73.930.62.04.89569.753.459.30.330.30
Kuwait5.74.841.66.23.740,1673.894.098.90.310.30
Lebanon4.33.690.33.04.273392.485.1100--
Lithuania6.26.770.55.33.712,1562.6133.887.00.200.28
Mauritius6.56.6611.70.04.076104.2112.668.80.200.09
Morocco5.04.860.64.84.327201.674.437.1--
Nigeria6.82.971.01.65.8204311.747.026.50.220.15
Oman4.36.081.43.83.617,9462.694.547.20.300.07
Pakistan6.73.561.23.94.39908.331.493.30.230.26
Romania5.85.494.20.03.878587.376.330.60.530.28
Serbia5.54.941.23.42.550028.185.727.90.180.43
Slovenia7.56.654.73.91.922,5742.4131.428.00.330.35
Sri Lanka6.04.662.40.05.827198.257.757.60.200.15
Tunisia5.04.641.03.43.137993.998.117.00.01−0.11
Vietnam4.54.171.73.96.212047.8161.918.90.360.24
Average5.756.33.33.83.993175.691.450.60.240.20
Median5.74.86.01.63.93.873393.985.940.10.220.25
Std. Dev1.01.32.03.92.21.294493.538.130.10.130.16
Country mean data for 2000–2017. Strength of Investor Protection Data scaled 0–10, with higher numbers indicating greater investor protection. Source: World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index. Legal Enforcement: mean of the following 3 variables: (1) judicial system efficiency, (2) assessment of the rule of law, and (3) corruption index (re-scaled from 0–10). Source: Items 1 & 2: World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators. Item 3: Transparency International Disclosure Requirements. Data scaled from 0-10. Source: World Bank’s Extent of Business Disclosure Index. Minority Investor Rights Source: World Economic Forum’s Global Corruption Index on ’Strength of Investor Protection’. Analyst Following is the number of analysts following per firm-year per country. Source: Datastream Societal Trust data scaled from 0-10. Source: World Values Survey GDP Per Capita in constant USD in 2005. Source: World Bank Big4 Ratio is the percentage of firms that employ a Big4 auditor firm. Source: Thomson Reuters. Correlation with USA and Europe is the mean of a rolling 48-month end of month close of each market’s major indices. Data is for the years 2014 to 2017. Source: Investment Frontier. Reimann (2000).
Table 2. Composition of Sample by Calendar Year, by Country, and by Industry.
Table 2. Composition of Sample by Calendar Year, by Country, and by Industry.
Sample by Calendar Year Sample by Country of Listing Sample by Industry
Yearn% CountrynObservations% IndustryObservations%
20003321.07 Argentina8513484.35 Chemical Products317610.26
20015701.84 Bahrain304591.48 Communications17735.73
20027592.45 Bangladesh967042.27 Durable goods12373.99
200311163.60 Bulgaria255311610.06 Electric, gas and sanitary services3851.25
200414214.59 Croatia9011853.83 Electronic Equipment4681.51
200516055.18 Estonia152140.69 Entertainment Services6051.95
200617395.62 Jordan17723057.44 Food Products623620.00
200718475.96 Kazakhstan575661.83 Health9423.04
200819416.27 Kenya416302.03 Manufacturing855127.61
200920176.51 Kuwait16522997.42 Oil & Gas22377.22
201020846.73 Lebanon6940.30 Paper and paper products335910.85
201121666.99 Lithuania192470.80 Retail3020.98
201222747.34 Mauritius737282.35 Scientific instruments7392.39
201323397.55 Morocco679613.10 Transportation9593.10
201423677.64 Nigeria14714814.78
201523627.63 Oman10816345.28
201623777.68 Pakistan22129109.40
201716535.34 Romania14818035.82
Slovenia385011.62
Sri Lanka258346211.18
Tunisia687922.56
Vietnam345353011.40
Total30,969100 Total250930,969100 30,969100
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables.
VariableMeanStd. DevQ1MedianQ3MinMax
AEM_L0.51010.16710.39480.50860.62500.02301.0000
AEM_Y0.51000.28900.26000.50880.76000.00301.0000
AEM_K0.51010.28910.26020.50910.76100.00301.0000
Analyst Following5.17858.41761.36651.97204.92700.293047.7660
Disclosure Requirements6.45872.00425.00006.00008.00003.000010.0000
Legal Enforcement4.69660.95614.06604.77105.40602.88307.8720
Minority Investors Rights5.70571.04964.70005.80006.70003.70007.5000
Societal Trust3.40132.03642.00003.90004.80000.00008.1000
Big-4 Auditor Following0.51660.27690.28000.47180.63200.00501.0000
GDP Per Captia (log)113.9067100.261646.700074.8000154.50006.6000464.3000
GDP Growth (%)4.25643.40252.59004.74006.4200−14.810017.3200
Trade Openness91.288442.161155.950088.8600120.510020.7200200.3100
Table 4. Correlation of key variables in the study.
Table 4. Correlation of key variables in the study.
Variables(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)
(1) AEM_L1
(2) AEM_Y0.485 ***1
(3) AEM_K0.476 ***0.758 ***1
(4) Analysts Following−0.0198 *−0.0339 ***−0.0359 ***1
(5) Disclosure Index−0.268 ***−0.251 ***−0.249 ***0.0920 ***1
(6) Legal Enforcement−0.160 ***−0.166 ***−0.168 ***0.203 ***0.0843 ***1
(7) Minority Investor Rights−0.0483 ***−0.0832 ***−0.0863 ***0.245 ***0.310 ***−0.0907 ***1
(8) Societal Trust0.160 ***0.138 ***0.137 ***0.209 ***0.137 ***−0.308 ***0.390 ***1
Significance is denoted p ≤ 0.05 level for * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Pooled OLS Regression Results of AEM, Institutional Settings, and Trust.
Table 5. Pooled OLS Regression Results of AEM, Institutional Settings, and Trust.
Panel A-AEM_L
Constant57.4878 ***3.603898.1515 ***79.3471 ***44.3968 ***108.4712 ***
(38.4411)(0.8789)(16.0532)(12.0074)(17.4969)(11.7814)
Analyst Following−0.308 ** −0.0753
(−2.152) (−0.5474)
Disclosure Index −7.7137 *** 9.7555 **
(−12.978) (−16.0529)
Legal Enforcement −9.3783 ** −11.1189 ***
(−7.2708) (−8.6184)
Minority Investor Rights −4.3545 *** −13.4551 ***
(−3.8141) (−11.364)
Societal Trust 0.2945 ***0.3196 ***
(4.5797)(4.8845)
Number of observations17,13617,13617,13617,13617,13617,136
R2 (or adjusted R2)0.00260.0840.0280.00790.01130.1825
Panel B-AEM_Y
Constant57.2011 ***5.875296.3802 ***89.1008 ***47.198 ***118.3319 ***
(46.8657)(1.7765)(19.3719)(16.5167)(22.7636)(16.3301)
Analyst Following−0.3786 *** −0.0617
(−3.1976) (−0.5676)
Disclosure Index −7.3599 *** −9.7382 ***
(−15.2126) (−20.416)
Legal Enforcement −9.1133 *** −11.0163 ***
(−8.6823) (−10.9826)
Minority Investor Rights −6.1755 *** −14.8405 ***
(−6.612) (−15.9982)
Societal Trust 0.198 ***0.248 ***
(3.7763)(4.9479)
Number of observations17,13617,13617,13617,13617,13617,136
R2 (or adjusted R2)0.00530.10460.03670.02160.00710.2526
Panel C-AEM_K
Constant57.3058 ***4.318596.1639 ***89.6948 ***47.0118 ***118.2039 ***
(44.64)(1.2397)(18.3453)(15.8017)(21.5649)(15.3851)
Analyst Following−0.3605 *** −0.0825
(−2.8946) (−0.7157)
Disclosure Index −7.6184 *** −10.0412 ***
(−14.9504) (−19.8546)
Legal Enforcement −9.0377 *** −11.0182 ***
(−8.1723) (−10.3601)
Minority Investor Rights −6.2564 *** −15.2311 ***
(−6.3662) (−15.4859)
Societal Trust 0.2072 ***0.2615 ***
(3.76)(4.9212)
Number of observations17,13617,13617,13617,13617,13617,136
R2 (or adjusted R2)0.00440.10140.03260.020.00710.2398
The use of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is supported by the Hausman test for fixed vs. random effect, which finds a chi-square of 0.25 and a p-value of 0.9694. Breusch-Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects vs. OLS finds a chi-square of 0.00 and a p-value of 1.0. These indicate that OLS is efficient. t-statics are reported in parenthesis. Significance is identified at two levels: ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Pooled OLS, Quantile Regression, & 2SLS Regression Results.
Table 6. Pooled OLS, Quantile Regression, & 2SLS Regression Results.
Pooled OLS Model Quantile Regression Model 2SLS Regression Model
VariableAEM_LAEM_YAEM_K AEM_LAEM_YAEM_K AEM_LAEM_YAEM_K
Constant108.4712 ***118.3319 ***118.2039 *** 31.945 ***34.383 ***34.671 *** 89.296 ***100.592 ***101.043 ***
(11.781)(16.3301)(15.3851) (8.32)(9.92)(10.00) (27.37)(32.67)(32.79)
Analyst Following−0.0753−0.0617−0.0825 −0.071−0.124 *−0.123 * −0.035−0.007−0.006
(−0.5474)(−.5676)(−0.7157) (−1.11)(−2.47)(−2.46) (−0.64)(−0.17)(−0.14)
Disclosure Index−9.7555 ***−9.7382***−10.0412 *** −7.252 ***−6.935 ***−6.934 *** −8.804 ***−8.830 ***−8.834 ***
(−16.0529)(−20.416)(−19.8546) (−29.23)(−30.80)(−30.78) (−41.76)(−44.15)(−44.13)
Legal Enforcement−11.1189 ***−11.0163 ***−11.0182 *** −4.191 ***−4.189 ***−4.239 *** −8.999 ***−9.920 ***−9.953 ***
( −8.6184)(−10.9826)(−10.3601) (−7.65)(−8.43)(−8.53) (−19.32)(−22.49)(−22.54)
Minority Rights−13.4551 ***−14.8405 ***−15.2311 *** −4.880 ***−4.848 ***−4.842 *** −11.339 ***−12.254 ***−12.310 ***
(−11.364)(−15.9982)(−15.4859) (−9.87)(−10.76)(−10.74) (−26.99)(−30.62)(−30.73)
Societal Trust0.3196 ***0.248 ***0.2615 *** 0.286 ***0.237 ***0.236 *** 0.425 ***0.369 ***0.370 ***
(4.8845)(4.9479)(4.9212) (9.93)(9.20)(9.15) (17.37)(16.15)(16.17)
N17,13617,13617,136 15,67417,33617,336 15,67417,33617,336
adj R2/PseudoR20.18250.25260.2398 0.0550.0520.052 0.1450.1470.148
Note: t-statics reported in parenthesis. Significance is identified at two levels: * p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. OLS, Quantile Regression, & 2SLS Regression with control variables.
Table 7. OLS, Quantile Regression, & 2SLS Regression with control variables.
Pooled OLS ModelQuantile Regression Model2SLS Regression Model
VariablesAEM_LAEM_YAEM_KAEM_LAEM_YAEM_KAEM_LAEM_YAEM_K
Constant47.700 *72.748 ***75.733 ***113.379 ***93.995 ***87.331 ***92.724 ***65.091 ***60.618 ***
(2.49)(9.79)(10.23)(10.91)(9.10)(8.88)(11.63)(8.04)(7.43)
Analyst Following−0.106−0.227 ***−0.254 ***0.008−0.291 ***−0.313 ***− 0.633 ***−0.475 ***−0.473 ***
(−1.80)(−4.35)(−4.88)(0.09)(−3.49)(−3.95)(−7.91)(−6.65)(−6.56)
Disclosure Index−6.767 ***−6.925 ***−7.273 ***−6.109 ***−6.855 ***−7.109 ***−2.284 ***−2.466 ***−2.664 ***
(−32.58)(−34.81)(−36.68)(−18.70)(−21.61)(−23.53)(−6.64)(−7.54)(−8.08)
Legal Enforcement−4.827 ***−5.649 ***−5.544 ***−4.354**−6.292 ***−6.205 ***−49.509 ***−53.212 ***−54.743 ***
(−4.70)(−5.94)(−5.85)(−2.69)(−4.15)(−4.30)(−15.56)(−17.64)(−18.01)
Minority Rights−1.052 *−1.787 ***−1.518 **−0.795−0.178−0.108−16.110 ***−18.108 ***−18.387 ***
(−2.09)(−3.64)(−3.10)(−1.00)(−0.23)(−0.15)(−16.00)(−17.68)(−17.82)
Societal Trust0.179 ***0.145 ***0.131 ***0.182 ***0.161 ***0.182 ***0.973 ***0.999 ***1.014 ***
(5.92)(5.06)(4.60)(3.83)(3.53)(4.19)(16.45)(17.37)(17.51)
Big-4−38.503 ***−28.546 ***−25.823 ***−36.558 ***−31.194 ***−30.668 ***14.187 ***27.387 ***32.004 ***
(−15.39)(−12.15)(−11.03)(−9.29)(−8.33)(−8.59)(3.45)(6.86)(7.95)
GDP per capita (ln)−9.409 ***−8.794 ***−8.986 ***6.085 ***5.384 ***6.048 ***−10.664 ***−12.535 ***−13.077 ***
(−12.42)(−12.49)(−12.81)(5.11)(4.80)(5.66)(−6.72)(−8.38)(−8.67)
Trade openness0.155 ***0.088 ***0.060*0.091*0.0460.0251.001 ***0.990 ***0.994 ***
(6.05)(3.62)(2.48)(2.27)(1.20)(0.67)(16.56)(17.06)(16.99)
GDP Growth (%)−0.797 ***−0.718 ***−0.771 ***−0.634**−0.752 ***−0.703 **−1.497 ***−1.693 ***−1.780 ***
(−5.22)(−5.02)(−5.41)(−2.64)(−3.30)(−3.24)(−8.11)(−9.40)(−9.80)
Book to Market−0.006−0.011−0.0130.005−0.002−0.039 **−0.012−0.019−0.021
(−0.58)(−1.15)(−1.34)(0.32)(−0.11)(−2.60)(−1.09)(−1.62)(−1.78)
IFRS0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)
Leverage0.0080.012 *0.016 **0.0050.0130.0140.0010.020 ***0.025 ***
(1.72)(2.38)(3.24)(0.72)(1.67)(1.89)(0.24)(3.45)(4.19)
Size−2.781 ***−1.444 ***− 0.699**−3.521 ***− 1.902 ***−0.780 *−2.273 ***− 0.763 **−0.005
(−12.52)(−6.59)(−3.20)(−10.08)(−5.44)(−2.34)(−8.79)(−2.92)(−0.02)
Industry Dummyyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes
Year Dummyyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes
Observations719379447944719379447944719379447944
Adjusted R-squared0.3380.3060.3000.1740.1550.1580.1100.0300.001
note: t-statics reported in parenthesis. Significance is identified at three levels: * p < 0.05 , ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martens, W.; Yapa, P.; Safari, M. Earnings Management in Frontier Market: Do Institutional Settings Matter? Economies 2021, 9, 17. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/economies9010017

AMA Style

Martens W, Yapa P, Safari M. Earnings Management in Frontier Market: Do Institutional Settings Matter? Economies. 2021; 9(1):17. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/economies9010017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martens, Wil, Prem Yapa, and Maryam Safari. 2021. "Earnings Management in Frontier Market: Do Institutional Settings Matter?" Economies 9, no. 1: 17. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/economies9010017

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop