Skip to main content
Log in

Managerial incentives for discretionary disclosure: evidence from management leveraged buyouts

  • Published:
Review of Accounting Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Managers in management leveraged buyout (MBO) firms prefer to purchase their firms at a low offer price. This motive gives them a clear incentive to make pessimistic discretionary disclosures. Using a sample of press releases, I find that managers involved in their firms’ MBO selectively release negative disclosures to denigrate their firm just before the MBO transaction when compared with prior period: they issue more bad news disclosures and more pessimistic quotes. Additionally, they issue less optimistic quotes, fewer good news disclosures, less positive earnings forecasts, and they manage earnings downwards. I control for factors that may not be caused by managers’ purchase motives by comparing the MBO sample with a third-party leveraged buyout sample where management is not involved in the buyout and with a performance-matched control sample. I find that the disclosure of MBO firms becomes significantly more pessimistic than the leveraged buyout firms where management is not involved in the transaction and significantly more pessimistic than the performance-matched control sample.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout the paper, I use the term “LBO” to refer exclusively to leveraged buyouts where management is not involved and “MBO” to refer to leveraged buyouts where only management is involved.

  2. Regardless of the involvement in the deal itself, the post-buyout management team’s equity stake is usually disproportionately high to compensate them for the disproportionately high risk and effort that they must assume (DeAngelo et al. 1984).

  3. Note that comparing leveraged buyout samples has been utilized in several prior studies (Harlow and Howe 1993; Perry and Williams 1994) to control for the buyout transactions’ effects on the subject of interest.

  4. DeAngelo et al. (1984) find an average premium of 56% over the day earlier share price. I find median premiums of 46.43% and 24.58% over the day earlier share prices in the MBO and LBO samples, respectively.

  5. MBOs are not without risk to management. If the MBO is unsuccessful, often due to the entry of large block-holders (Peck 1996), managers face a high probability of being replaced within the year (Ofek 1994).

  6. Many leveraged buyout companies are small and therefore do not release press releases to services such as Reuters or Dow Jones newswires. As my search is based on the firm’s name at the time of the buyout, the dropping of these firms cannot be due to a name change (as would be the case in Compustat).

  7. Other measures of size, risk, growth and Investment opportunity set such as book value, total assets and book-to-market ratio were substituted for MVE and the results were qualitatively similar.

  8. Note that although this scenario is possible, my results show that managers on average who were more optimistic were less pessimistic at the same time.

  9. Analysis is not sensitive to using net income (Item #69) rather than income before extraordinary items.

  10. Autocorrelation is tested using the Generalized Durbin–Watson and Beruch–Godfrey tests.

  11. Other serial correlation correction methods of estimation such as Estimated Generalized Least Squares (EGLS) using the Yule-Walker method (a variation of the Cochrane-Orcott method where the first observation is retained) produce similar results.

References

  • Aboody, D., & Kasznik, R. (2000). CEO stock option awards and the timing of corporate voluntary disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29, 73–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, R. F., & Paine, L. S. (1988). Management buyouts and managerial ethics. California Management Review, 302, 89–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, L. (1986). Accounting numbers as market valuation substitutes: A study of management buyouts of public stockholders. The Accounting Review, 61(3), 400–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Rice, E. M. (1984). Going private: Minority freezeouts and stockholder wealth. Journal of Law and Economics, XXVII(October), 367–401.

  • Dechow, P., Sloan, R., & Sweeney, A. (1996). Causes and consequences of earnings manipulations: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, M., & Wang, S. (1999). Earnings management by acquiring firms in stock for stock mergers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 27, 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1986). A “signal jamming” theory of predation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(3), 366–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, W. (1992). Quantile regression with bootstrapped standard errors. Stata Technical Bulletin, 9, 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, W., & Howe, J. (1993). Leveraged buyouts and insider nontrading. Financial Management, 22(1), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P., Hutton, A., & Palepu, K. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosure. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(3), 485–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (Vol. 1, pp. 221–223). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Hutton, A., Miller, G., & Skinner, D. (2000). The role of supplementary statements with management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 867–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 193–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasznik, R. (1999). On the association between voluntary disclosure and earnings management. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, S. P., Leone, A., & Wasley, C. (2005). Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 163–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M., & Lundholm, R. (2000). Voluntary disclosure and equity offerings: Reducing information asymmetry or hyping the stock? Contemporary Accounting Research, 17(4), 623–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, L. (1986). No more cozy management buyouts. Harvard Business Review, 641, 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., & Penman, S. H. (1990). Voluntary forecast disclosure, nondisclosure, and stock prices. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(1), 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ofek, E. (1994). Efficiency gains in unsuccessful management buyouts. Journal of Finance, 49, 637–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, S. W. (1996). The influence of professional investors on the failure of management buyout attempts. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, S. E., & Williams, T. H. (1994). Earnings management preceding management buyout offers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. H. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1987). Management buyouts as a response to market pressure. In A. J. Auerbach (Ed.), Mergers and acquisitions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. (1997). Earnings disclosures and stockholder lawsuits. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 23, 249–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J. (1989). Efficient capital markets, inefficient firms: A model of myopic corporate behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 655–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nader M. Hafzalla.

Additional information

This paper is based on Nader Hafzalla’s dissertation research at the University of Michigan. Nader died unexpectedly on June 29, 2006. He was a great student, a loyal friend and a ton of fun. His dissertation committee members are Russell Lundholm (chair), Patricia Dechow, Richard Sloan, and Sugato Bhattacharyya. Nader also received help on this work from all the faculty and doctoral students at Michigan, particularly Peter Demerjian, Michelle Hanlon, Sarah McVay, Venky Nagar, Cathy Shakespeare, Doug Skinner, Mark Soliman and Matt VanWinkle. We all miss him.

Appendices

Appendix A

Panel A: Key words used to determine tone in managerial quotes

Optimistic

Pessimistic

Happy

Unhappy

Pleased

Displeased

Encouraged

Discouraged

Remain positive

Hopeless

Positive

Negative

Optimistic

Pessimistic

Excited

Unexcited

Proud

Disappointed

Positive Future Outlook

Grim Future Outlook

Panel B: Examples of good and bad additional details

Good News

Bad News

New product release or development

Loss of contract or major customer

Advancing to a new phase of testing or government approval of a product

Major layoffs or restructuring

Increases in dividend payments

Reduction in dividend payments

Opening of new stores or branches

Closing of stores, branches, or facilities

 

Litigation brought against the firm

Unexpected increases in monthly sales or earnings

Unexpected decreases in monthly sales or earnings

New contract or alliance intended to improve performance

Write-downs of assets

Appendix B: Examples of managerial quotes

1.1 Optimistic disclosures

1.1.1 MascoTech Corp on February 28th, 2000—Bad performance

MascoTech’s CEO Frank M. Hennessey commented, “Although we continue to be impacted by softness in certain of our markets, we are particularly pleased with the growth in 1999 experienced by our North American Metal Forming operations and our Towing Systems Group. We are seeing signs of improvement in our other business segments and are optimistic that the growth initiatives that we are pursuing will result in long-term value creation.”

1.1.2 Intermetrics Inc. on June 28th, 1994—Good performance

“I am optimistic,” Saponaro continues, “about the long-term prospects for the company. Backlog continues at a high level of $114 million, reflecting current contract awards with new customers involving substantial multi-year initiatives to upgrade, expand and re-engineer information and information related systems. Given the strength of the backlog and anticipated new contract awards, the company expects to report steadily improving results over the first quarter for the remaining nine months of fiscal year 1995.”

1.2 Pessimistic disclosures

1.2.1 Besicorp Inc. on February 17th, 2000—Good performance

According to James E. Curtin, vice president and controller, “The increase in revenues in the three and nine months ended December 31, 1999 from the corresponding periods in the prior year represents an increase in photovoltaic product sales ... No assurance can be given that revenues or gross margins will remain at current levels.”

1.2.2 Amtran Inc. on January 30th, 2001—Bad performance

“We faced several difficult challenges in the fourth quarter,” said John Tague, Amtran’s president and chief executive officer.... “We are obviously disappointed in our bottom-line results for the quarter, as well as the year.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hafzalla, N.M. Managerial incentives for discretionary disclosure: evidence from management leveraged buyouts. Rev Account Stud 14, 507–533 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-007-9061-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-007-9061-0

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation