Tension in Financial Reporting: Reacting to a Peer Bankruptcy Announcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate if and how a peer’s bankruptcy affects financial reporting by other firms within the industry. Prior research documents that the bankruptcy filing of a peer firm has negative capital market effects on other firms within the industry (lower stock market value and higher cost of debt). We argue that firms within an industry experiencing peer bankruptcies modify their financial reporting to mitigate such negative capital market effects. However, tension arises as to whether such modification is toward more conservative accounting or the opposite. Using a large sample of firms from 1980 to 2018, we find that following a peer firm bankruptcy filing, other firms within the industry exhibit a rise in conditional conservatism in their financial reporting. Our findings are robust to a battery of tests including the exclusion of distressed industries, the 2000 dot-com crash period, and the 2008 financial crisis period as well as employing an alternative proxy for conditional conservatism. The results are not significant for placebo bankruptcies 1 and 2 years before actual bankruptcies. Further analyses show that the spillover effects are more pronounced for firms in homogeneous industries, which exhibit higher leverage, with strong governance mechanisms, and in industries that experience strong market reaction following peer bankruptcy announcements. We also find that the bankruptcy filing of larger and older firms leads to stronger spillover effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".