Estimating financial distress with a dynamic model: Evidence from family owned enterprises in a small open economy
Introduction
Estimating the onset of corporate financial distress (FD) has assumed indisputably wide-ranging usefulness and applicability, stemming from its significant ramifications for company stakeholders in cases of failure to meet debt obligations and payment default, on the one side, and to corporate restructuring, asset sales and debt workouts, on the other2 (Hotchkiss et al., 2008). Vis-à-vis its importance, there has been extensive efforts to understand its economic drivers, performance and arising conflicts of interest, both in and out of court. Herein, we propose a new methodology to better understand FD on the one hand and to accurately predict its occurrence on the other, employing a dynamic nonlinear model which incorporates valuable information regarding past FD records.
The majority of research effort has been devoted so far in understanding and predicting bankruptcy and debt payment legal default, which paves the way for asset and debt restructurings, in or out-of-court, notwithstanding the potential for severe conflicts arising between managers, shareholders and creditors (see Hotchkiss et al., 2008 for a survey). Nevertheless, numerous researchers, including Wruck (1990), Asquith et al. (1994), Andrade and Kaplan (1998), Platt and Platt (2006), Jostarndt and Sautner (2008) and Pindado et al. (2008) have focused on obtaining a measure of FD likelihood (FDL), not necessarily entailing a formal bankruptcy filing or payments in arrears, but rather a situation of distress recognized by evidence of financial shortcomings from published accounts. Defining FDL this way includes as stress indicators, indispensably an earnings (either EBITDA – earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization adjusted – or EBIT – earnings before interest and taxes) shortfall to cover financial expenses (FE), coupled in some cases with additional indicators, such as layoffs, reducing market valuation, negative EBIT or negative net income before special items. Its usefulness lies in the fact that it is independent of the eventual outcome, but consistent with an ex-ante approach (Pindado et al., 2008). Moreover, upon its diagnosis, FDL incorporates the potential for continuous reassessments prior to the occurrence of its ultimate resolution, facilitating the ex-ante corporate or stakeholder planning of possible remedies. The helpfulness of doing so may be seriously justified by the fact that firms in FD are considerably more probable to go bankrupt or be acquired.3
It is worth noting that there exist several distinctive features between the aforementioned definition of FDL and bankruptcy or payments default: the latter (bankruptcy and payments default) are (i) more closely related to corporate death than the former, and (ii) more closely resemble a one-off incident, modeled as an “absorbing barrier”4; in contrast, FDL may last for several years, especially in the case when it coexists with relative economic under-performance (Kahl, 2002). Moreover, the past record towards FD does matter, as there is an early warning of a potentially forthcoming distress-related bankruptcy or acquisition many years before its ultimate formal resolution (Ro et al., 1992). By defining likewise FDL, analysts are provided with an early distress warning tool, useful for an ex-ante FD estimation approach.
The majority of such estimation approaches have used static estimation techniques (e.g., the typical panel logit or probit) that fail to account for the full sample FD evolution dynamics; a solution proposal is the employment of hazard models that do use the full past record of FD and model the eventual bankruptcy (Campbell et al., 2008). Nevertheless, this very definition and staying nature of FD (an FE-EBIT shortfall may persist in several accounting years) sets estimation techniques via hazard models questionable for modeling the dynamics of the process. Up to corporate disappearance (the absorbing barrier) hazard models assume a different process than further on, where observations are treated as a new beginning of the process, not accounting for a dependence on previous FD history.
Given the importance of accounting for the FD dynamics, we employ a dynamic nonlinear panel model specification proposed by Wooldridge (2005) (conditional maximum likelihood estimator) which accounts for unobserved heterogeneity in a dynamic discrete choice framework, which may be easily formulated in widely available software. In the existing FDL literature, the strong dynamic dependence of FD on previous-year outcomes has been (partly) circumvented by limiting its definition to earnings shortfalls lasting two years (Platt and Platt, 2006, Pindado et al., 2008, Jostarndt and Sautner, 2008), in essence de-trending its one-period state-persistence. Nevertheless, a conceptual setback in employing such a biennial FDL indicator is the unavoidable treatment of the rest of the observations as a “non-FDL group”. This categorization fails to differentiate within this group between companies not experiencing biennial financial shortcomings, those managing to overcome FD problems of the previous period with a positive turnaround, and those that have only recently (for just one period) entered FD.
In our study we explore the degree to which a dynamic nonlinear panel model may help us to improve our understanding of the evolution of FD within firms as well as accurately classifying a firm's FD or FDL. The data we used consist of a panel with the entire listing of non-financial, non-government-owned firms on the Athens Stock Exchange, from 1993 to 2004 and from 2005 to 2009 inclusive The reason for this data partitioning is the mandatory introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IAS) for listed companies, beginning on 2005, which has altered the information content of reported accounts vis-à-vis the domestic accounting standards previously used. Likewise we shall be able to better evaluate the consistency of our results comparing the two subsamples and understand the validity of our approach under the new information environment. Furthermore, we screened our panel for reported bankruptcies, FD-related trading suspensions and supervisions by stock exchange authorities as well as announcements of significant corporate restructurings; likewise, we strived to establish which of the two definitions closely follows the more salient FD outcomes for the investment community.
As a next step, we formulate a dynamic nonlinear model for FD with explicit dependence on the initial period (Wooldridge, 2005), correcting for possible endogenous dependence between random error and covariates (Mundlak, 1978). We use the same explanatory variables used in previous studies of FDL (Pindado et al., 2008) namely profitability, leverage, retained earnings and time-dummies. The fact that previous studies of FDL have focused on major worldwide markets (US and G7 countries) (Pindado et al., 2008) coupled with the necessity to develop a consistent and stable model of FDL for different countries and time periods (Grice and Dunkan, 2001), renders the Greek stock market, vis-à-vis its particularities, an excellent opportunity to test previous methodologies “out of sample” and develop an understanding of managerial handling of FD under “family capitalism” (Morck and Steier, 2005). Moreover, the validity of the new econometric methodology we propose, namely a dynamic versus static formulation, depends on whether our dependent variable – financial distress – exhibits state dependency; given the indisputably persistent nature of financial distress evidenced in mainstream markets (Ro et al., 1992) we are convinced that our econometric approach is applicable in a wide range of environments globally.
Our introduction of covariates accounting for the inter-temporal process dynamics, such as initial period exogenous covariates, is expected to help us better understand the historical evolution of FD and the economic reasons behind it. In particular, the effect of initial conditions of the process on later developments may provide us with helpful insights into the implications of early managerial decisions down the corporate road. Vis-à-vis managerial agency conflicts with shareholders (Jensen and Meckling, 1976) and possibly problems caused by overconfidence (Hackbarth, 2002), the deeper into corporate history we dig the more likely we might uncover useful pieces of information regarding FD evolution.
Finally, we perform model simulations with data up to one year preceding the last (including 2003 for our first pre-IAS sample, and 2008 for our second post-IAS sample), and measure the accuracy of simulated responses on our last data year (2004 and 2009, respectively). Hence, we check with our real-world data whether our suggested approach is helpful in predicting FDL.
The following consists of Part 2 which describes our data and the characteristics of the Greek stock exchange, Part 3, describing our modeling framework, Part 4, providing and discussing our results, and Part 5, with our conclusions and suggestions for further research.
Section snippets
Data and market description
Our data consist of the entire universe of listed companies on the Athens Stock Exchange between 1993 and 2004, for the pre-IAS panel, and 2005–2009, for the post-IAS panel, excluding financial, investment funds and government-owned firms. Each panel is trimmed by its first year of observations, as there is a requirement for one-period lagged data. We have used the official Athens stock exchange Information Services and information provided on its website (www.athex.gr) in order to obtain
Econometric modeling framework
The typical binary outcome in a non-linear problem setting is modeled in the form of a latent regression of a continuous variable related to the binary outcome, in our case assuming positive values whenever there is an earnings shortfall (yit = 1) for one or two periods and negative values if there exists adequate coverage of FE via reported EBITDA for a single or two consecutive periods:unobserved heterogeneity: αi ∼ iidN(0, ) and yit = 1 if , if and uit ∼ iidN
Results and discussion
Looking at our sample descriptive statistics we may clarify the importance of the single versus biennial formulation. As can be seen in Table 3, in our sample of Greek-listed firms the percentage of companies encountering FDL (6.9%) is quite close to the global percentage of G7 listed companies (7.6%) flagging FDL in a similar time frame (Pindado et al., 2008).7 Interestingly enough, the proportion
Conclusions
We have pursued a dynamic nonlinear modeling approach for the evolution of FD in non-financial listed firms to account for its dynamic state-persistent nature. We focused on the estimation of FDL, defined as the flag signaling biennial FE-EBITDA shortfall, which is not a legally bound corporate condition but rather reflects a situation that may or may not, depending on corporate actions, further deteriorate or improve. Employing a definition of FD as the flag signaling a single FE-EBITDA
References (26)
- et al.
The determinants of capital structure: evidence from the Asia Pacific region
Journal of Multinational Financial Management
(2004) - et al.
Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and capital structure
Journal of Financial Economics
(1976) - et al.
Financial distress, corporate control, and management turnover
Journal of Banking and Finance
(2008) - et al.
Alternative constructions of Tobin's q: an empirical comparison
Journal of Empirical Finance
(1994) - et al.
Estimating financial distress likelihood
Journal of Business Research
(2008) - et al.
The international evidence on performance and equity ownership by insiders, blockholders, and institutions
Journal of Multinational Financial Management
(2005) Financial distress, reorganisation, and organisational efficiency
Journal of Financial Economics
(1990)- et al.
How costly is financial, (not economic) distress – evidence from highly leveraged transactions that became distressed
The Journal of Finance
(1998) - Akay, A., 2009. The Wooldridge method for the initial values problem is simple: what about performance? IZA Discussion...
- et al.
Anatomy of financial distress: an examination of junk-bond issuers
Quarterly Journal of Economics
(1994)
Taking time seriously: time-series – cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable
American Journal of Political Science
Reorganization in US and European Bankruptcy Law
European Journal of Law and Economics
In search of distress risk
The Journal of Finance
Cited by (12)
Antecedents of Organizational Resilience after COVID-19: The Case of UAE
2023, Sustainability (Switzerland)The determinants of financial distress cost: A case of emerging market
2023, Cogent Economics and FinanceIs financial distress risk important for manufacturing SMEs to rebalance the short-term debt ratio?
2022, Journal of Risk FinanceCorporate financial distress: The case of publicly listed firms in an emerging market economy
2021, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting
- 1
Tel.: +30 2610 996394.