Does the Implementation of SFAS 71 Affect Banks Loan Loss Provisioning Behavior and Equity Valuation?

Iman Sofian Suriawinata, Lies Zulfiati, Devvy Rusli

Abstract


Objective It has been several reporting years since the implementation of SFAS 71, which became effective on January 1, 2020. This study aims to investigate the effect of adopting SFAS 71 on banks loan loss provisioning behavior, as well as on the value relevance of SFAS 71 in assessing the quality of banks loan portfolios.Design/Methodology A moderated generalized least squares regression method is used to analyze the panel data from a sample of 40 publicly traded commercial banking companies from 2016 to 2022.Results SFAS 71 provides unintended opportunities for bank managers to engage in strategic income smoothing practices through loan loss provisioning. However, the loan loss provisions calculated under the SFAS 71 appear to give more useful information for capital market participants in assessing banks' loan portfolio quality and risk. Therefore, adopting SFAS 71 has a favorable impact on bank equity valuation.Research limitations/implications The study period relating to the implementation of SFAS 71 coincides with the COVID-19 pandemic era. Therefore, the results obtained in this study may be attributed to the combined effect of SFAS 71 and the pandemic. Future studies using banking data post-COVID-19 are strongly recommended.Novelty/Originality This paper is the first to empirically investigate the effect of the adoption of SFAS 71 on banks loan loss provisioning behavior as well as its value relevance relating to the quality and riskiness of banks loan portfolios. This study contributes to the understanding of both the benefits and the potential misuse of SFAS 71.

Keywords


SFAS 71; loan loss provisions; income smoothing; bank equity valuation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Avdjiev, S., & Jager, M. (2022). Bank opacity - Patterns and implications (992). https://www.bis.org/publ/work992.pdf

Balla, E., & Rose, M. J. (2015). Loan loss provisions, accounting constraints, and bank ownership structure. Journal of Economics and Business, 78, 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECONBUS.2014.12.003

Beatty, A., & Liao, S. (2014). Financial accounting in the banking industry: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 339–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCECO.2014.08.009

Bertsatos, G., Sakellaris, P., & Tsionas, M. G. (2017). Did the financial crisis affect the market valuation of large systemic U.S. banks? Journal of Financial Stability, 32, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFS.2017.09.002

Bogdanova, B., & Fender, I. (2018). The ABCs of bank PBRs. BIS Quarterly Review, March, 95. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1803h.pdf

Brüggemann, U., Hitz, J.-M., & Sellhorn, T. (2013). Intended and unintended consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption: A review of extant evidence and suggestions for future research. European Accounting Review, 22(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.718487

Bushman, R. M., & Williams, C. D. (2012). Accounting discretion, loan loss provisioning, and discipline of Banks’ risk-taking. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCECO.2012.04.002

Cao, J., & Juelsrud, R. E. (2022). Opacity and risk-taking: Evidence from Norway. Journal of Banking and Finance, 134(January), 106010. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2020.106010

DeFond, M. L. (2019). Why accounting matters: Evidence from accounting’s “Big Bang.” Journal of International Accounting Research, 18(3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-52568

Flannery, M. J., Kwan, S. H., & Nimalendran, M. (2004). Market evidence on the opaqueness of banking firms’ assets. Journal of Financial Economics, 71(3), 419–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(03)00185-5

Flannery, M. J., Kwan, S. H., & Nimalendran, M. (2013). The 2007-2009 financial crisis and bank opaqueness. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2012.08.001

Fosu, S., Danso, A., Agyei-Boapeah, H., Ntim, C. G., & Murinde, V. (2018). How does banking market power affect bank opacity? Evidence from analysts’ forecasts. International Review of Financial Analysis, 60, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IRFA.2018.08.015

Fosu, S., Ntim, C. G., Coffie, W., & Murinde, V. (2017). Bank opacity and risk-taking: Evidence from analysts’ forecasts. Journal of Financial Stability, 33, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFS.2017.10.009

Gomaa, M., Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., & Shehata, M. (2019). Testing the efficacy of replacing the incurred credit loss model with the expected credit loss model. European Accounting Review, 28(2), 309–334. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09638180.2018.1449660

Greenawalt, M. B., & Sinkey, J. F. (1988). Bank loan-loss provisions and the income-smoothing hypothesis: An empirical analysis, 1976–1984. Journal of Financial Services Research, 1(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00235201

Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Jones, J. S., Lee, W. Y., & Yeager, T. J. (2013). Valuation and systemic risk consequences of bank opacity. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(3), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBANKFIN.2012.10.028

Kilic, E., Lobo, G. J., Ranasinghe, T., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2013). The impact of SFAS 133 on income smoothing by banks through loan loss provisions. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 233–260. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41721941

López-Espinosa, G., Ormazabal, G., & Sakasai, Y. (2021). Switching from incurred to expected loan loss provisioning: Early evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 59(3), 757–804. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12354

Morgan, D. P. (2002). Rating banks: Risk and uncertainty in an opaque industry. American Economic Review, 92(4), 874–888. https://doi.org/10.1257/ 00028280260344506

Niu, J. (2016). Loan growth and bank valuations. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 61, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.QREF.2016. 02.001

Ozili, P. K. (2022). Banking sector earnings management using loan loss provisions in the Fintech era. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 18(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-07-2020-0369

Ozili, P. K., & Arun, T. G. (2018). Income smoothing among European systemic and non-systemic banks. The British Accounting Review, 50(5), 539–558. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2018.03.001

Sakawa, H., Watanabel, N., Sasaki, H., & Tanahashi, N. (2020). Bank valuation and size: Evidence from Japan. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 63(October), 101403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101403

Simoens, M., & Vennet, R. Vander. (2021). Bank performance in Europe and the US: A divergence in market-to-book ratios. Finance Research Letters, 40, 101672. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FRL.2020.101672

Suriawinata, I. S. (2023). The implementation of SFAS 71, bank equity valuation, and the moderating effect of bank size. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, 26(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.33312/ijar.648

Vo, N. N. T., Nguyen, T. V. H., & Phan, D. H. T. (2022). Earnings management and bank risk-taking behavior in Asia-Pacific region. Research in International Business and Finance, 63, 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RIBAF.2022. 101785




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/jaroe.v8i2.37312

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Published by:

Department of Accounting
Faculty of Economics and Business 
Universitas Syiah Kuala
Kopelma Darussalam, Banda Aceh, Indonesia - 23111
E-ISSN: 2621-1041

 

Creative Commons License
Journal of Accounting Research, Organization and Economics by the Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Syiah Kuala is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.jurnal.usk.ac.id/JAROE/index.