Loan loss provisions and income smoothing in banks: the role of trade openness and IFRS in BRICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper empirically investigates whether trade openness (TO) in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries affects how banks might employ loan loss provisions (LLPs) to smooth out their earnings and how adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) can mitigate it. Design/methodology/approach The analysis includes 78 commercial banks from five BRICS nations and spans 2014 through 2020. To test these hypotheses, the authors utilized a fixed-effect and two-step system panel generalized methods of moments (GMM) estimator. Findings TO positively affects income smoothing (earnings management) across BRICS commercial banks. The effect is clearer in banks that make financial reports under the IFRS. Path analysis reveals that the effect of TO is driven by nonperforming loans (NPLs). Additionally, the IFRS restricts earnings management in the BRICS banking sector when a better institutional environment is present. The authors found that accounting rules (IFRS) and enforcement (better institutional settings) interact to enhance earnings’ quality. Practical implications The relationship between TO and bank earnings management practices is important for understanding the complex interplay between trade and finance and ensuring financial stability, investor confidence and regulatory compliance. This study recommends better regulations and governance mechanisms for financial reports in emerging nations like BRICS. Additionally, macro-prudential regulators and banking supervisors should work closely to ensure transparent TO decisions with improved discipline, institutional quality and regulatory support to enhance bank stability. Originality/value The study finds evidence of bank income smoothing in the BRICS and introduces TO as a determinant. It also identifies the evolving role of IFRS in the presence of higher institutional quality and TO, thereby expanding the financial reporting literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".