Skip to main content
Log in

CEO profile and earnings quality

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper introduces the PSCORE, which aggregates nine personal characteristics of chief executive officers (CEOs), to signal the quality of earnings. The PSCORE is a composite score based on publicly available data on CEOs. The study reports strong positive relationships between the PSCORE and two different proxies for earnings quality, (1) discretionary accruals and (2) financial statement errors, measured by deviations of the first digits of figures reported in financial statements from those expected by Benford’s Law. Further analyses indicate that the relationships between the PSCORE and the proxies for earnings quality become more pronounced when CEOs have high equity-based compensation incentives. The findings have some implications for practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This evidence is also consistent with the work of Custódio and Metzger (2014), which shows that financial expert CEOs lead to favourable financial outcomes for firms.

  2. Although some papers (Klein 2002; Bédard et al. 2004; Badolato et al. 2014) refer to membership of an audit committee as an indicator of financial expertise, the PSCORE does not include this indicator, to avoid overidentification. Most corporate governance codes require an audit committee to have at least one member with a financial background (FRC 2003, 2012). Therefore, any member of an audit committee is likely to have a finance-related certification or finance-related work experience. These characteristics have already been captured by the other three financial expertise factors in the PSCORE.

  3. This approach does not apply to the calculation of the other variables.

  4. As a robustness test (not tabulated), we include observations with fewer than 50 first digits and the findings do not change qualitatively.

  5. UK national newspapers which are included in the research results in the LexisNexis database are the Daily Star, Daily Star Sunday, Express Online, Independent Print Ltd, MailOnline, Morning Star, The Business, The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday (London), The Daily Telegraph (London), Telegraph (London), telegraph.co.uk, The Express, The Guardian, The Independent (United Kingdom), The Mirror (The Daily Mirror and The Sunday Mirror), mirror.co.uk, The Observer, The People, The Sunday, The Sunday Times (London), and The Times (London).

  6. The subsample is smaller than the main sample because firms with fewer than 50 first digits are excluded.

  7. Prior studies using the absolute values of discretionary accruals include Bergstresser and Philippon (2006), Jiang et al. (2010), Armstrong et al. (2010), and Hilary et al. (2016), to name just a few.

  8. Amiram et al. (2015) report mean and standard deviation of the FSD_SCOREs of listed companies in the US from 2001 to 2011 to be 0.0296 and 0.0087, respectively.

  9. While the PSCORE theoretically varies from zero to nine, there is no CEO with a PSCORE of nine in the sample.

  10. As a robustness test (not tabulated), we define PSCORE groups in another way, with the low-PSCORE group including PSCOREs ranging from 0 to 4 and the high-PSCORE group those from 5 to 8. The findings do not change qualitatively.

  11. We note that we measure real earnings management using the absolute values of residuals estimated from the models of Roychowdhury (2006) for consistency with the construction of the PSCORE, which is designed to signal earnings quality without a particular emphasis on the directional effects of earnings management. When we use the real values of the residuals, the findings show that the coefficients on the PSCORE are still positive. Generally, the results seem to support the notion that the PSCORE is positively associated with the established proxies for real earnings management.

References

  • Ahmed AS, Duellman S (2013) Managerial overconfidence and accounting conservatism. J Account Res 51(1):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Aier JK, Comprix J, Gunlock MT, Lee D (2005) The financial expertise of CFOs and accounting restatements. Account Horiz 19(3):123–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali A, Zhang W (2015) CEO tenure and earnings management. J Account Econ 59(1):60–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiram D, Bozanic Z, Rouen E (2015) Financial statement errors: evidence from the distributional properties of financial statement numbers. Rev Account Stud 20(4):1540–1593

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CS, Jagolinzer AD, Larcker DF (2010) Chief executive officer equity incentives and accounting irregularities. J Account Res 48(2):225–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CS, Larcker DF, Ormazabal G, Taylor DJ (2013) The relation between equity incentives and misreporting: the role of risk-taking incentives. J Finan Econ 109(2):327–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanasakou VE, Strong NC, Walker M (2009) Earnings management or forecast guidance to meet analyst expectations? Account Bus Res 39(1):3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Baber WR, Kang S-H, Li Y (2011) Modeling discretionary accrual reversal and the balance sheet as an earnings management constraint. Account Rev 86(4):1189–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Badolato PG, Donelson DC, Ege M (2014) Audit committee financial expertise and earnings management: the role of status. J Account Econ 58(2–3):208–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball R (2013) Accounting informs investors and earnings management is rife: two questionable beliefs. Account Horiz 27(4):847–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Barua A, Davidson LF, Rama DV, Thiruvadi S (2010) CFO gender and accruals quality. Account Horiz 24(1):25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Bédard J, Chtourou SM, Courteau L (2004) The effect of audit committee expertise, independence, and activity on aggressive earnings management. Audit J Pract Theory 23(2):13–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstresser D, Philippon T (2006) Ceo incentives and earnings management. J Finan Econ 80(3):511–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand M, Schoar A (2003) Managing with style: the effect of managers on firm policies. Q J Econ 118(4):1169–1208

    Google Scholar 

  • Botsari A, Meeks G (2008) Do acquirers manage earnings prior to a share for share bid? J Bus Finance Account 35(5–6):633–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozio A, Crawford R, Tetlow G. (2010). The history of state pensions in the UK: 1948 to 2010: Institute for Fiscal Studies

  • Campbell TC, Gallmeyer M, Johnson SA, Rutherford J, Stanley BW (2011) CEO optimism and forced turnover. J Finan Econ 101(3):695–712

    Google Scholar 

  • Capalbo F, Frino A, Lim MY, Mollica V, Palumbo R (2018) The impact of CEO narcissism on earnings management. Abacus 54(2):210–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Carslaw CA (1988) Anomalies in income numbers: evidence of goal oriented behavior. Account Rev 63(2):321–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Chava S, Purnanandam A (2010) CEOs versus CFOs: incentives and corporate policies. J Finan Econ 97(2):263–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng Q, Warfield TD (2005) Equity incentives and earnings management. Account Rev 80(2):441–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi J, Gupta M (2009) Overvaluation and earnings management. J Bank Financ 33(9):1652–1663

    Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou D, Ma L, Vasnev A (2018) Inference-in-residuals as an estimation method for earnings management. Abacus 54(2):154–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen DA, Zarowin P (2010) Accrual-based and real earnings management activities around seasoned equity offerings. J Account Econ 50(1):2–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Custódio C, Metzger D (2014) Financial expert CEOs: CEO׳s work experience and firm׳s financial policies. J Finan Econ 114(1):125–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson R, Dey A, Smith A (2015) Executives’ “off-the-job” behavior, corporate culture, and financial reporting risk. J Finan Econ 117(1):5–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis AK, Ge W, Matsumoto D, Zhang JL (2015) The effect of manager-specific optimism on the tone of earnings conference calls. Rev Account Stud 20(2):639–673

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Dichev ID (2002) The quality of accruals and earnings: the role of accrual estimation errors. Account Rev 77(s-1):35–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Sloan RG (1991) Executive incentives and the horizon problem: an empirical investigation. J Account Econ 14(1):51–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Sloan RG, Sweeney AP (1995) Detecting earnings management. Account Rev 70(2):193–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Sloan RG, Sweeney AP (1996) Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: an analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the sec. Contemp Account Res 13(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Ge W, Schrand C (2010) Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. J Account Econ 50(2):344–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow PM, Ge W, Larson CR, Sloan RG (2011) Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemp Account Res 28(1):17–82

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFond ML (2010) Earnings quality research: advances, challenges and future research. J Account Econ 50(2–3):402–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Demerjian PR, Lev B, Lewis MF, McVay SE (2013) Managerial ability and earnings quality. Account Rev 88(2):463–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey A (2008) Corporate governance and agency conflicts. J Account Res 46(5):1143–1181

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson V (2011) Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. Account Rev 86(6):1969–1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellul A, Yerramilli V (2013) Stronger risk controls, lower risk: Evidence from U.S. Bank holding companies. J Finance 68(5):1757–1803

    Google Scholar 

  • Farber DB (2005) Restoring trust after fraud: Does corporate governance matter? Account Rev 80(2):539–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng M, Ge W, Luo S, Shevlin T (2011) Why do CFOs become involved in material accounting manipulations? J Account Econ 51(1–2):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields TD, Lys TZ, Vincent L (2001) Empirical research on accounting choice. J Account Econ 31(1–3):255–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2003) The combined code on corporate governance

  • Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2012) UK corporate governance code. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx. Accessed 27 Aug 2018

  • Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2016) Current RSBs and RQBs. https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Conduct/Professional-oversight/Oversight-of-Audit/Recognition-of-Recognised-Supervisory-Bodies-and-R/Current-RSBs-and-RQBs.aspx. Accessed 27 Aug 2018

  • Francis J, Huang AH, Rajgopal S, Zang AY (2008) Ceo reputation and earnings quality. Contemp Account Res 25(1):109–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Galasso A, Simcoe TS (2011) CEO overconfidence and innovation. Manag Sci 57(8):1469–1484

    Google Scholar 

  • García Lara JM, Garcia Osma B, Neophytou E (2009) Earnings quality in ex-post failed firms. Account Bus Res 39(2):119–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerakos J (2012) Discussion of detecting earnings management: a new approach. J Account Res 50(2):335–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh L, Gupta A (2016) Remuneration of non-executive directors: evidence from the UK. Br Account Rev 48(3):379–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Gounopoulos D, Pham H (2018) Financial expert ceos and earnings management around initial public offerings. Int J Account 53(2):102–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: an update. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):334–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev 9(2):193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S, Mooney AC (2005) Executive job demands: new insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Acad Manag Rev 30(3):472–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilary G, Huang S, Xu Y (2016) Marital status and earnings management. Eur Account Rev 26(2):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D, Low A, Teoh SH (2012) Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? J Finance 67(4):1457–1498

    Google Scholar 

  • Holthausen RW, Larcker DF, Sloan RG (1995) Annual bonus schemes and the manipulation of earnings. J Account Econ 19(1):29–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Hribar P, Collins DW (2002) Errors in estimating accruals: implications for empirical research. J Account Res 40(1):105–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh T-S, Bedard JC, Johnstone KM (2014) Ceo overconfidence and earnings management during shifting regulatory regimes. J Bus Finance Account 41(9–10):1243–1268

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang H-W, Rose-Green E, Lee C-C (2012) CEO age and financial reporting quality. Account Horiz 26(4):725–740

    Google Scholar 

  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) (2009) ISA 315 “identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement through understanding the entity and its environment”. In: International auditing and assurance standards board

  • Iqbal A, Strong N (2010) The effect of corporate governance on earnings management around UK rights issues. Int J Manag Finance 6(3):168–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal A, Espenlaub S, Strong N (2009) Earnings management around UK open offers. Eur J Finance 15(1):29–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson AB (2018) Discretionary accruals: Earnings management… Or not? Abacus 54(2):136–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia Y, Lent LV, Zeng Y (2014) Masculinity, testosterone, and financial misreporting. J Account Res 52(5):1195–1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Jian M, Lee KW (2011) Does CEO reputation matter for capital investments? J Corp Finan 17(4):929–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang J, Petroni KR, Yanyan Wang I (2010) CFOs and CEOs: Who have the most influence on earnings management? J Finan Econ 96(3):513–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones JJ (1991) Earnings management during import relief investigations. J Account Res 29(2):193–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Joos P, Leone A, Zimmerman JL (2003) Selecting CEOs: matching the person to the job. Unpublished working paper University of Rochester

  • Kalyta P (2009) Accounting discretion, horizon problem, and CEO retirement benefits. Account Rev 84(5):1553–1573

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J-B, Wang Z, Zhang L (2016) Ceo overconfidence and stock price crash risk. Contemp Account Res 33(4):1720–1749

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein A (2002) Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. J Account Econ 33(3):375–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari SP, Leone AJ, Wasley CE (2005) Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. J Account Econ 39(1):163–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuang YF, Qin B, Wielhouwer JL (2014) Ceo origin and accrual-based earnings management. Account Horiz 28(3):605–626

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafond R (2008) Discussion of “CEO reputation and earnings quality”. Contemp Account Res 25(1):149–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Larcker DF, Richardson SA, Tuna I (2007) Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance. Account Rev 82(4):963–1008

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-WJ, Li LY, Yue H (2006) Performance, growth and earnings management. Rev Account Stud 11(2–3):305–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang Y, Marinovic I, Varas F (2018) The credibility of financial reporting: a reputation-based approach. Account Rev 93(1):317–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmendier U, Tate G (2009) Superstar CEOs. Q J Econ 124(4):1593–1638

    Google Scholar 

  • McNichols MF, Stubben SR (2018) Research design issues in studies using discretionary accruals. Abacus 54(2):227–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbourn TT (2003) CEO reputation and stock-based compensation. J Finan Econ 68(2):233–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, vol 4. Irwin, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen NTM, Iqbal A, Shiwakoti RK (2015) There’s no smoke without fire: Does the context of earnings management contain information about future stock returns? Working paper. University of Kent. http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2015-Amsterdam/papers/EFMA2015_0174_fullpaper.pdf

  • Nguyen TT, Duong C, Nguyen N (2018) Benford’s law, earnings management, and accounting conservatism: The UK evidence. Paper presented at the European Financial Management Association

  • Nguyen TT, Duong CM, Nguyen NTM, Bui HQ (2020) Accounting conservatism and banking expertise on board of directors. Rev Quant Finance Account 55:501–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigrini MJ (1996) A taxpayer compliance application of benford’s law. J Am Tax Assoc 18(1):72–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigrini MJ (2015) Persistent patterns in stock returns, stock volumes, and accounting data in the US Capital markets. J Account Audit Finance 30(4):541–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigrini MJ, Miller SJ (2009) Data diagnostics using second-order tests of Benford’s law. Audit J Pract Theory 28(2):305–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigrini MJ, Mittermaier LJ (1997) The use of Benford’s law as an aid in analytical procedures. Audit J Pract Theory 16(2):52–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens E, Wu J, Zimmerman J (2013) Business model shocks and abnormal accrual models (ssrn scholarly paper no. Id 2365304). Social Science Research Network, Rochester

  • Peasnell KV, Pope PF, Young S (2000) Detecting earnings management using cross-sectional abnormal accruals models. Account Bus Res 30(4):313–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Peasnell KV, Pope PF, Young S (2005) Board monitoring and earnings management: Do outside directors influence abnormal accruals? J Bus Finance Account 32(7–8):1311–1346

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010) Auditing standard no. 12 “identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement”. In: Public company accounting oversight board

  • Roychowdhury S (2006) Earnings management through real activities manipulation. J Account Econ 42(3):335–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrand CM, Zechman SLC (2012) Executive overconfidence and the slippery slope to financial misreporting. J Account Econ 53(1–2):311–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Serfling MA (2014) CEO age and the riskiness of corporate policies. J Corp Finance 25:251–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipman JE, Swanquist QT, Whited RL (2017) Propensity score matching in accounting research. Account Rev 92(1):213–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Taffler RJ (1983) The assessment of company solvency and performance using a statistical model. Account Bus Res 13(52):295–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JK (1989) Unusual patterns in reported earnings. Account Rev 64:773–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade JB, Porac JF, Pollock TG, Graffin SD (2006) The burden of celebrity: the impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Acad Manag J 49(4):643–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Yim S (2013) The acquisitiveness of youth: CEO age and acquisition behavior. J Finan Econ 108(1):250–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Zang AY (2012) Evidence on the trade-off between real activities manipulation and accrual-based earnings management. Account Rev 87(2):675–703

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Cheng-Few Lee (the Editor in Chief) and the two anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions that have greatly improved our paper. We gratefully acknowledge John Chandler, Balasingham Balachandran, Jia Liu, Yanlei Zhang, Facundo Mercado, Laila Aldaoor, Young Sang Kim, Donghui Li, Halit Gonenc, Youngsuk Yook, Jurica Susnjara, Ljiljana Kukec, Tiemei (Sarah) Li, Wei Luo as well as anonymous reviewers and participants at British Academy of Management’s 2016 Corporate Governance Early Careers Researcher Conference, British Accounting and Finance Association South Western Area Group’s 2016 Doctoral Colloquium, European Financial Management Association’s 2017 Annual Conference, European Accounting Association’s 2017 Annual Congress, and American Accounting Association’s 2017 Annual Meeting for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions of the paper. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tri Tri Nguyen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Variable definitions

Appendix: Variable definitions

Variable

Definition

Individual factors of the PSCORE

pAGE

Equals one if either (1) the age of the CEO is less than or equal to the 25th percentile of the industry-year (identified by Datastream Level 6) or (2) the CEO is 1 year or less from retirement age, and zero otherwise. The retirement ages of men and women in the UK are 65 and 60, respectively, for the period from 1948 to 2010; from April 2010 to March 2020, the retirement age of women increases by one month every month until it reaches 65 (Bozio et al. 2010)

pCERT

Equals one if the CEO does not have an MBA or CPA equivalent, and zero otherwise. CPA equivalent is defined as a professional accounting certification issued by one of the five qualifying bodies currently accredited by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC 2016): Association of International Accountants (AIA), Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI), Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) (or international equivalent certifications)

pCFO

Equals one if the CEO does not have work experience as a chief financial officer, and zero otherwise

pCHAIRMAN

Equals one if the CEO serves as the chairperson of the board of directors of the firm, and zero otherwise

pEARLY

Equals one if the CEO is within their first three years of service at the firm, and zero otherwise

pFOUNDER

Equals one if the CEO is the founder or a co-founder of the firm, and zero otherwise

pPRESS

Equals one if the number of newspapers simultaneously citing the name of the CEO and the company they work for in the year question is less than the corresponding industry mean (identified by Datastream Level 6), and zero otherwise

pROA

Equals one if the average of the industry-adjusted return on assets (aveROA) during the last 3 years of the CEO’s tenure is negative, and zero otherwise, where aveROA is (1) the average of the industry-adjusted return on assets in years t, t − 1 and t-2 if the CEO is in their third year of tenure, or (ii) the average of the industry-adjusted return on assets in years t and t − 1 if the CEO is in their second year of tenure, or (3) the industry-adjusted return on assets in year t if the CEO is in their first year of tenure. Return on assets equals net income before extraordinary items divided by total assets

pROLE

Equals one if the number of years the CEO has been working as the CEO of their current firm is less than the corresponding industry-year mean (identified by Datastream Level 6), and zero otherwise

PSCORE

\( = {\text{pCFO}} + {\text{pCERT}} + {\text{pROLE}} + {\text{pPRESS}} + {\text{pROA}} + {\text{pEARLY}} + {\text{pFOUNDER}} + {\text{pCHAIRMAN}} + {\text{pAGE}} \)

PSCORE_O

PSCORE with CEO overconfidence:

\( PSCORE\_O = PSCORE + CEO\_OVERCONFIDENCE \)

where CEO_OVERCONFIDENCE is CEO-level overconfidence. We first calculate the measure of firm-level overconfidence (Campbell et al. 2011; Schrand and Zechman 2012; Kim et al. 2016), denoted by OVERCONFIDENCE, which has a value of one if a firm-year observation meets at least three out of the following five conditions:

(1) INVEST is ranked in the top industry-year (Datastream Level 6) quartile. INVEST is excess investment, which is the residual of the regression:

\( \frac{{Total Assets_{i,t} - Total Assets_{i,t - 1} }}{{Total Assets_{i,t - 1} }} = \alpha + \beta \frac{{Sale_{i,t} - Sale_{i,t - 1} }}{{Sale_{i,t - 1} }} + \varepsilon \)

(2) ACQUISITION is ranked in the top industry-year (Datastream Level 6) quartile. ACQUISITION is equal to net acquisition (cash flow statements) scaled by total assets

(3) The debt-to-equity ratio is ranked in the top industry-year (Datastream Level 6) quartile. The debt-to-equity ratio is equal to the sum of long-term debts and short-term debts divided by the market value of equity

(4) Either convertible debt is greater than zero or preferred stock is greater than 0

(5) Zero dividend yield

Otherwise, it has a value of zero. Following Campbell et al. (2011) and Kim et al. (2016), CEO-level overconfidence takes a value of one starting from the first year in which the CEO’s firm has a score for OVERCONFIDENCE equal to one

Proxies for earnings quality

DAC

Absolute values of discretionary total accruals (DAC), estimated by the modified-Jones models (Jones 1991; Dechow et al. 1995) with at least ten observations for each industry-year (Datastream Level 6). \( DAC_{i,t} = \left| {\frac{{AC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} - \left[ {\hat{\alpha } + \hat{\beta }_{1} \left( {\frac{1}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \hat{\beta }_{2} \left( {\frac{{\Delta REV_{i,t} - \Delta REC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \hat{\beta }_{3} \varvec{ }\left( {\frac{{PPE_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right)} \right]} \right| \); where \( \hat{\alpha },\; \hat{\beta }_{1} ,\;\hat{\beta }_{2} ,\;\hat{\beta }_{3} \) are coefficients estimated by the model: \( \frac{{AC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} = \alpha + \beta_{1} \left( {\frac{1}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{2} \left( {\frac{{\Delta REV_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{3} \varvec{ }\left( {\frac{{PPE_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \varepsilon_{i,t} \); \( AC_{i,t} \) is total accruals, which equals net income before extraordinary items minus net cash flows from operations; \( A_{i,t - 1} \) is total assets of firm i at end of year t–1; \( \Delta REV_{i,t} \) and \( \Delta REC_{i,t} \) are change in sales and change in receivables from year t–1 to year t of firm i, respectively; \( PPE_{i,t} \) is gross plant, property and equipment of firm i at end of year t

DAMP

Absolute values of discretionary working capital accruals (DAMP) estimated by the margin model of Peasnell et al. (2000) with at least ten observations for each industry-year (Datastream Level 6). DAMP are the absolute values of the residuals of the following regression: \( \frac{{WAC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} = \alpha + \beta_{1} \left( {\frac{{REV_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{2} \left( {\frac{{REV_{i,t} - \Delta REC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \varepsilon_{i,t} ; \) \( WAC_{i,t} \) is working capital accruals, \( WAC_{i,t} = \left( {\Delta CA_{i,t} - \Delta CHE_{i,t} } \right) - \left( {\Delta CL_{i,t} - \Delta STD_{i,t} } \right) \) [\( \Delta CA_{i,t} \) is change in current assets; \( \Delta CHE_{i,t} \) is change in cash and cash equivalents; \( \Delta CL_{i,t} \) is change in current liabilities; \( \Delta STD_{i,t} \) is change in short-term debts]; \( A_{i,t - 1} \) is total assets of firm i at end of year t–1; \( REV_{i,t} \) is sales of firm i in year t; \( \Delta REC_{i,t} \) is receivables from year t–1 to year t of firm i

DWAC

Absolute values of discretionary working capital accruals (DWAC) estimated by the modified-Jones models (Jones 1991; Dechow et al. 1995) with at least ten observations for each industry-year (Datastream Level 6).

\( DWCA_{i,t} = \left| {\frac{{WAC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} - \left[ {\hat{\alpha } + \hat{\beta }_{1} \left( {\frac{1}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \hat{\beta }_{2} \left( {\frac{{\Delta REV_{i,t} - \Delta REC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \hat{\beta }_{3} \varvec{ }\left( {\frac{{PPE_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right)} \right]} \right| \); where \( \hat{\alpha },\; \hat{\beta }_{1} ,\;\hat{\beta }_{2} ,\;\hat{\beta }_{3} \) are coefficients estimated by the model: \( \frac{{WAC_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} = \alpha + \beta_{1} \left( {\frac{1}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{2} \left( {\frac{{\Delta REV_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{3} \varvec{ }\left( {\frac{{PPE_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \varepsilon_{i,t} \); \( WAC_{i,t} \) is working capital accruals, \( WAC_{i,t} = \left( {\Delta CA_{i,t} - \Delta CHE_{i,t} } \right) - \left( {\Delta CL_{i,t} - \Delta STD_{i,t} } \right) \) [\( \Delta CA_{i,t} \) is change in current assets; \( \Delta CHE_{i,t} \) is change in cash and cash equivalents; \( \Delta CL_{i,t} \) is change in current liabilities; \( \Delta STD_{i,t} \) is change in short-term debts]; \( A_{i,t - 1} \) is total assets of firm i at end of year t–1; \( \Delta REV_{i,t} \) and \( \Delta REC_{i,t} \) are change in sales and change in receivables from year t–1 to year t of firm i respectively; \( PPE_{i,t} \) is gross plant, property and equipment of firm i at end of year t

FSD_SCORE

Mean absolute deviation of the first digits of figures reported in the financial statements of firm i in year t from what are expected by Benford’s Law. \( FSD\_SCORE_{i,t} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{d = 1}^{9} \left| {OBSERVED_{d,i,t} - EXPECTED_{d} } \right|}}{9} \); where \( OBSERVED_{d,i,t} \) is the observed (actual) probability of digit d of firm i in year t; \( EXPECTED_{d} \) is the expected probability of first digit d as defined by Benford’s Law; and d = 1, 2, …, 9

KS

The maximum cumulative absolute deviation of the first digits of items reported in the financial statements from those expected by Benford’s Law:

\( KS_{i,t} = max\left\{ {\left| {OD_{1,i,t} - ED_{1} } \right|,\left| {\left( {OD_{1,i,t} + OD_{2,i,t} } \right) - \left( {ED_{1} + ED_{2} } \right)} \right|, \ldots ,\left| {\left( {OD_{1,i,t} + OD_{2,i,t} + \ldots + OD_{9,i,t} } \right) - \left( {ED_{1} + ED_{2} + \ldots + ED_{9} } \right)} \right|} \right\} \)

where \( OD_{d,i,t} \) is the cumulative observed probability of the first digit d (d = 1, 2, …, 9) of firm i in year t; \( ED_{d} \) is the expected probability of the first digit d (d = 1, 2, …, 9), as defined by Benford’s Law

DCF

Absolute value of abnormal cash flow. DCF is the absolute value of the residual of the following regression for each (Datastream Level 6) industry and each year with at least ten observations:

\( \frac{{CFO_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }} = \alpha + \beta_{1} \left( {\frac{1}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{2} \left( {\frac{{REV_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \beta_{3} \left( {\frac{{\Delta REV_{i,t} }}{{A_{i,t - 1} }}} \right) + \varepsilon_{i,t} \)

where \( CFO_{i,t} \) is net cash flows from operations; \( A_{i,t - 1} \) is total opening assets; \( REV_{i,t} \) is sales; \( \Delta REV_{i,t} \) is sales in year t minus sales in year t − 1; i is firm i; t is the year; and \( \varepsilon_{i,t} \) is the error term

DDISEXP

Absolute value of abnormal discretionary expenditures. DDISEXP is the absolute value of the residual of the following regression for each (Datastream Level 6) industry and each year with at least ten observations:

\( \frac{{{\text{DISEXP}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}}}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }} =\upalpha\left( {\frac{1}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upbeta_{1} \left( {\frac{{{\text{REV}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upvarepsilon_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}}}} \)

where \( DISEXP_{i,t} \) is discretionary expenditures, which equals R&D expenses plus selling and administrative expenses; \( A_{it - 1} \) is total opening assets; \( REV_{i,t - 1} \) is sales in year t− 1; i is the firm; t is the year; \( \varepsilon_{i,t} \) is the error term

DPROD

Absolute value of abnormal production costs. DPROD is the absolute value of the residual of the following regression for each (Datastream Level 6) industry and each year with at least ten observations:

\( \frac{{{\text{PROD}}_{\text{it}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }} =\upalpha\left( {\frac{1}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upbeta_{1} \left( {\frac{{{\text{REV}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}}}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upbeta_{2} \left( {\frac{{\Delta {\text{REV}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}}}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upbeta_{3} \left( {\frac{{\Delta {\text{REV}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}{{{\text{A}}_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}} - 1}} }}} \right) +\upvarepsilon_{{{\text{i}},{\text{t}}}} \)

where \( PROD_{i,t} \) is production costs, which equal the sum of cost of goods sold and change in inventories from year t − 1 to year t; \( REV_{i,t} \) is sales; \( \Delta REV_{it} \) is sales in year t minus sales in year t − 1; \( \Delta REV_{it - 1} \) is sales in year t − 1 minus sales in year t−2; \( A_{it - 1} \) is total opening assets; i is the firm; t is the year; \( \varepsilon_{i,t} \) is the error term

REM

Total real earnings management. REM = DCF + DPROD + DDISEXP

Control variables

aACIND

Industry-adjusted audit committee independence, where audit committee independence is the percentage of independent members on the audit committee. Industry-adjusted value equals the firm value minus the mean for the corresponding industry-year.

aBDIND

Industry-adjusted board independence, where board independence is the percentage of independent directors on the board.

aLEV

Industry-adjusted leverage, where leverage (LEV) equals the sum of long-term debts and short-term debts, scaled by total assets.

aLOGMBT

Industry-adjusted market-to-book ratio, where the market-to-book ratio (LOGMTB) is the natural log of the ratio of the market value to the book value of equity.

aLOGMVE

Industry-adjusted firm size, where firm size (LOGMVE) equals the natural log of the market value of equity.

aNOA

Industry-adjusted net operating asset ratio (NOA), where \( NOA = \left[ {CEQ + \left( {DLTT + DLC} \right) - CHE} \right]/REV \), where \( {\text{CEQ}} \) is the total book value of equity, \( {\text{DLTT}} \) is long-term debts, \( {\text{DLC}} \) is short-term debts; \( {\text{CHE}} \) is cash and cash equivalent; \( {\text{REV}} \) is sales.

AUDIT

equals one if the firm is audited by a Big Four audit firm, and zero otherwise.

CYCLE

Indicator for the business life cycle, calculated based on Dickinson (2011), and equals one if a firm has negative CFO, negative CFI, and positive CFF (young firm), or positive CFO, negative CFI, and positive CFF (growth firm), and zero if a firm has positive CFO, negative CFI, and negative CFF (mature firm), where CFO is cash flows from operating activities, CFI is cash flows from investing activities, and CFF is cash flows from financing activities

DISTRESS

equals one if ZSCORE is negative, and zero otherwise, where ZSCORE, following Taffler (1983), is calculated as follows: \( {\text{ZSCORE}} = 3.2 + 12.18 * {\text{X}}_{1} + 2.50 * {\text{X}}_{2} - 10.68 * {\text{X}}_{3} + 0.029 * {\text{X}}_{4} \), where \( {\text{X}}_{1} = \frac{\text{Profit before tax}}{\text{current liabilities}} \), \( {\text{X}}_{2} = \frac{\text{Current assets}}{\text{Total liabilities}} \), \( {\text{X}}_{3} = \frac{\text{Current liabilities}}{\text{Total assets}} \), and \( {\text{X}}_{4} = \frac{{\left( {{\text{Quick assets}} - {\text{Current liabilities}}} \right)}}{{\left( {{\text{Sales}} - {\text{Pretax income}} - {\text{Depreciation}}} \right)/365}} \).

INCENTIVE

Equity-based incentives of the CEO: \( INCENTIVE = \frac{ONEPCT}{{\left( {ONEPCT + SALARY + BONUS} \right)}} \) \( ONEPCT = 0.01 x PRICE x \left( {SHARE + OPTION} \right) \)

where \( INCENTIVE \) is the equity-based incentives of the CEO; \( ONEPCT \) is the dollar change in the CEO’s equity holdings following a 1% change in the stock price; \( PRICE \) is the closing share price; \( SHARE \) is the number of shares held by the CEO; \( OPTION \) is the number of options held by the CEO; \( SALARY \) is the total cash salary the CEO receives; and \( BONUS \) is the cash bonus the CEO receives. Compensation data are manually collected from the Bloomberg database

M&A

Equals one if a firm announces a share-financed merger and acquisition deal, and zero otherwise

SEO

Equals one if a firm issues a significant portion of equity (outstanding shares increase by at least 5% and proceeds from equity issuance are positive), and zero otherwise

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, T.T., Duong, C.M. & Narendran, S. CEO profile and earnings quality. Rev Quant Finan Acc 56, 987–1025 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00916-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00916-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation