Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) is an exogenous shock to the information environment of U.S.-listed firms, those firms might adjust their capital structures to reflect the new information environment. Using univariate and multivariate tests, including differences-in-differences, I examine SOX's effect on the capital structure of U.S.-listed firms relative to Canadian firms listed in Canada, which are treated as control firms since they are not subject to SOX. The results indicate that, after the passage of SOX, U.S.-listed firms raise their long-term debt ratios by two to three percentage points, relative to the control group. U.S. firms listed in the U.S. drive this result, while Canadian firms cross-listed in the U.S. do not alter their long-term leverage ratios after SOX. The higher debt ratios do not occur because of lower rates of growth in equity and short-term debt after SOX for U.S.-listed firms, relative to control firms. In addition, firms that heavily (lightly) manage earnings prior to SOX use less (more) debt after SOX.\nPrevious research argues that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) could require managers to reveal bad news about their firms. Bad news may cause market participants, including credit rating agencies, to update their beliefs about those firms and conclude that their outlook is not as profitable as initially thought. In this paper, I examine short- and long-term credit ratings after SOX. The main finding is that, in the SOX era, aggressive earnings management is associated with lower short- and long-term credit rating levels. This result is robust to size and suppliers' outlook on the economy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".