MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035932737 · doi:10.21511/bbs.15(2).2020.15

Influence of financial indicators on earnings management behavior: evidence from Vietnamese commercial banks

2020· article· en· W3035932737 on OpenAlexaff
Tran Quoc Thinh, Tran Ngoc Anh Thu

Bibliographic record

VenueBanks and Bank Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseBusinessLeverage (statistics)Earnings managementEarningsProfitability indexAccountingFinanceContext (archaeology)Financial statementLoanEconomicsAudit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of financial disclosures is of great importance than ever, as Vietnam’s international economic integration has been accelerating recently. This issue is currently particularly worrying for the banking sector in Vietnam, as banks play a vital role in economic development. However, there is a growing concern that managers tend to manipulate financial information using earnings management techniques to meet analyst expectations and to enhance the firm value in the short term. Such behavior can lead to inappropriateness in the decision-making process of financial statement users, as well as impair firm value in the long term. Therefore, this study examines the impact of factors related to financial indicators on earnings management of Vietnamese commercial banks to give more insight into the issue. The data of this study was collected from a sample of 30 Vietnamese commercial banks during a 5-year period from 2015 to 2019. By using the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression method through Eviews 10.0, the findings revealed that financial leverage and loan loss provision have a positive and significant impact on earnings management. Also, bank size and profitability were negatively associated with earnings management. Based on these findings, in the context of Vietnam, the study proposed policy suggestions to improve the quality of accounting information and to assist users of financial statements in recognizing and restricting earnings management in commercial banks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBanks and Bank SystemsSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207