Search

The financial health hypothesis argues that the valuation multiple of book value of equity (earnings) increases (decreases) as financial health decreases. By considering the liquidity dimension of financial health, we analyze an accrual-based liquidity ratio (current ratio) and a cash-based liquidity ratio (OCF ratio) from the perspective of this hypothesis. Using the median values of these ratios, we divide the sample consisting of listed firms on Borsa Istanbul during 2009–2018 into two and document the ensuing outcomes. Valuation multiples of book value of equity and earnings are reported as being statistically indifferent between low-liquid and high-liquid subgroups obtained for the median current ratio. However, the valuation multiple of book value of equity (earnings) significantly increases (decreases) for the low-liquid subgroup below the median OCF ratio. As the latter is consistent with the financial health hypothesis, this study reveals that the OCF ratio is a more convenient and reliable measure of liquidity than the current ratio.

High-levered firms have serious concerns related to avoiding covenant violations and meeting the needs of their creditors. Accounting information of those firms should be less value relevant for market participants. Based on a sample of Turkish listed firms over 2009–2018, we analyse whether the value relevance of accounting information is significantly lower for high-levered firms. For this purpose, we group observations with no net debt and divide the rest into quintiles based on leverage levels. We conclude that the value relevance of both earnings and book value of equity is lower for the high-levered quintile than the rest. Moreover, the value relevance of earnings is moderated more than the value relevance of book value of equity for the high-levered quintile. Last, book value of equity is more dominant in the valuation of the high-levered quintile than the valuation of the rest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most value relevance (VR) studies consider an accounting item value relevant if the regression coefficient (RC) of that item is statistically significant. Unobservable heterogeneity leads to biased RCs, interpretation of which generates incorrect inferences. To obtain unbiased RCs, the effect of unobservable heterogeneity on RCs should be mitigated. As two dimensions of unobservable heterogeneity are at the firm level and time level, outcomes with the following unobservable heterogeneity concerns are discussed: i) no fixed‐effects (FE); ii) firm FE; iii) time FE; and iv) two‐way (firm and time) FE. By employing a sample of Turkish firms from 2005–2014, we report several findings. First, we find that regressions with firm (time) FE yield large (low) RCs vis‐à‐vis regressions with no FE, and regressions with two‐way FE generate balanced RCs compared to the others. Second, we compare RCs with i and iv, and conclude that the book value of equity becomes more value relevant while net income does not after controlling for unobservable heterogeneity. Last, we arbitrarily divide the entire period into two to reveal how unobserved endogeneity affects the comparison of RCs belonging to different periods. Our outcomes robustly reveal that unobserved endogeneity leads to erroneous RC comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]