Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
I find that managers manage earnings upward in the quarters preceding a debt-covenant violation, but downward in the quarter a violation occurs. And they continue to manage earnings downward while the firm remains in violation. Because this scenario can play out within a year, the use of yearly data to examine the debt-covenant hypothesis can be problematic. Further analysis shows that the earnings management around the debt-covenant violation is also done to improve the manager’s bargaining power in the renegotiation that follows the violation. Furthermore, I find no evidence of excessive earnings management by high-debt firms to stave off a violation, but I do find evidence that the Sarbanes–Oxley Act restrains managers from using accruals to stave off a violation. These results are based on examining 193,803 firm-quarters, 8,804 firms, and 2,035 new covenant violations spanning 1996 to 2007.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anand Jha (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: