The Relationship between Peers’ Weak Performance and Conditional Conservatism: The Moderating Role of Corporate Governance, Information Asymmetry, and Managerial Ability

Hamidian, Narges; Fattahi Nafchi, Hasan; Farhadian, Leila

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Editorial Board

Articles archive

Publication Ethics

For Authors

Peer Review Process

Registration

Site Facilities

Contact us

Search in website

Receive site information

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

The Relationship between Peers’ Weak Performance and Conditional Conservatism: The Moderating Role of Corporate Governance, Information Asymmetry, and Managerial Ability

Narges Hamidian ^*¹

, Hasan Fattahi Nafchi²

, Leila Farhadian³

1- Assistant Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.(Corresponding Author) , n.hamidian@ase.ui.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. h.fattahi@ase.ui.ac.ir
3- MSc. of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. Lfarhadian1402@ase.ui.ac.ir

Abstract: (70 Views)

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between peers’ weak performance and conditional conservatism, with a focus on moderating roles of corporate governance, information asymmetry, and managerial ability. Conditional conservatism refers to the timely recognition of bad news relative to good news in earnings. Based on the peer effect literature, the performance of similar firms within the same industry (peers) can influence the decisions and financial reporting characteristics of the focal firm. Accordingly, weak peer performance is expected to affect firms’ conservative reporting behaviors by increasing investors’ sensitivity to negative news. Weak corporate governance, high information asymmetry, and managerial ability can further shape how managers respond to weak peer performance. The sample consists of 137 firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange over the period 2012–2023. The hypotheses were tested using panel data with year fixed effects and GLS estimation. Findings show a significant positive association between peers’ weak performance and conditional conservatism, indicating investors’ sensitivity to timely disclosure of negative news in environments with poorly performing peers. Corporate governance did not significantly moderate this relationship, which may be attributed to ineffective monitoring mechanisms or heterogeneity in corporate governance characteristics across firms. In contrast, information asymmetry strengthens this relationship, such that in more opaque environments, the impact of peers’ weak performance on conservative reporting becomes more pronounced. managerial ability, unexpectedly, strengthens this relationship, possibly because capable managers adopt more conservative behavior to preserve reputation and mitigate litigation risks. Robustness tests of individual corporate governance components confirm the stability of second hypothesis, with the interaction term mostly insignificant, except for government influence and ownership, which alter the relationship’s direction.

Keywords: Peer Effect, Conditional Conservatism, Corporate Governance, Information Asymmetry, Managerial Ability

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2025/09/25 | Accepted: 2026/03/1

References

1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488–500.

2. Avery, C. N., & Chevalier, J. A. (1999). Herding over the career. Economics Letters, 63(3): 327-333.

3. Ball, R., & Shivakumar, L. (2005). Earning quality in UK private firm: comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 39(1): 83-138.

4. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3): 797–817.

5. Bedard, J., Chtourou, S. M., & Courteau, L. (2004). The effect of audit committee expertise, independence, and activity on aggressive earnings management. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(2): 13-35.

6. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1, pp. 141–154). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

7. Bernard, D., Kaya, D., & Wertz, J. (2021). Entry and capital structure mimicking in concentrated markets: The role of incumbents’ financial disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 71(2-3): 101379.

8. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5): 992–1026.

9. Bird, A., Edwards, A., & Thomas, G. R. (2018). Taxes and peer effects. The Accounting Review, 93(5): 97-117.

10. Bratten, B., Payne, J. L., & Thomas, W. B. (2016). Earnings management: Do firms play “follow the leader”? Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(2) :616-643.

11. Cao, J., Liang, H., & Zhan, X. (2019). Peer effects of corporate social responsibility. Management Science, 65(12): 5487-5503.

12. Chen, Y. W., Chan, K., & Chang, Y. (2019). Peer effects on corporate cash holdings. International Review of Economics and Finance, 6: 213-227.

13. Cheynel, E., & Levine, C. B. (2020). Public disclosures and information asymmetry: A theory of the mosaic. The Accounting Review, 95(1) :79-99.

14. Demerjian, P. R., Lev, B., Lewis, M. F., & McVay, S.E. (2013). Managerial ability and earnings quality. The Accounting Review, 88(2): 463-498.

15. Fairhurst, D. J., & Nam, Y. (2020). Corporate governance and financial peer effects. Financial Management, 49(1): 235–263.

16. Fattahi, H. and Khajevand, M. (2018). age, corporate governance, and capital structure choices in companies admitted to Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting and Management Vision, 1(4): 72-85. (In Persian)

17. Fu, Z., Ma, Y., Li, S. & Qiao, L. (2023). Peer performance and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings recognition. International Review of Financial Analysis, 85: 102427.

18. Gleason, C. A., Jenkins, N. T., & Johnson, W. B. (2008). The contagion effects of accounting restatements. The Accounting Review, 83(1): 83-110.

19. Grennan, J. (2019). Dividend payments as a response to peer influence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3): 549-570.

20. Gyimah, D., Machokoto, M. & Sikochi, A. (2020). Peer influence on trade credit. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64: 101685.

21. Haider, H., Shingh, H., & Sultana, N. (2021). Managerial ability and accounting conservatism. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 17(1).

22. Hamidian, N. and Fattahi Nafchi, H. (2025). The Effect of Peer Firms on the Marginal Value of Cash Holdings: The Moderating Role of Firm Size and Market Competition. Empirical Research in Accounting, 15(4): 57-78.

23. Hudson, Y., Yan, M., & Zhang, D. (2020). Herd behavior & investor sentiment: Evidence from UK mutual funds. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71: 101494.

24. Im, H. J., & Shon, J. (2019). The effect of technological imitation on corporate innovation: Evidence from US patent data. Research Policy, 48(9): 103802.

25. Jiang, H., & Verardo, M. (2018). Does herding behavior reveal skill? An analysis of mutual fund performance. The Journal of Finance, 73(5): 2229-2269.

26. Joodaki, M., Khalili, Y. and Rahmati, L. (2023). Investigating the moderating effect of Leader and Young firms in industry on the relationship between Peer Firms and the Firm's Investment based on the theories of Information Deficit and Competitiveness. Journal of Accounting Advances, 15(2): 71-104. (In Persian)

27. Kamyabi, Y. and Javady Nia, A. (2021). Investigating the Effect of Moderating Managerial Ability on the Relationship between Investor Sentiment and Accounting Conservatism. Accounting and Auditing Review, 28(1): 102-134. (In Persian).

28. Kaustia, M., & Rantala, V. (2015). Social learning and corporate peer effects. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(3): 653-669.

29. Khajavi, S., Weysihesar, S. and Ghayouri Moghaddam, A. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Managers’ Ability on Conservatism with a Focus on the Size and Leverage of Firms. Accounting and Auditing Review, 29(4): 628-649. (In Persian)

30. Khoo, J, & Cheung, A. (2024). Firms’ organization capital: Do peers’ matter? International Review of Financial Analysis, 96: 103619.

31. Kordestani, G., & Jafari Souq, S. A. (2022). Peer firms’ performance and earnings management: The impact of capital market pressure. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting, 1(3): 71–99. (In Persian)

32. Larcker, D. F., Richardson, S. A., Tuna, I., & r. (2007). Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance. The Accounting Review, 82(4): 963-1008.

33. Leary, M. T., & Roberts, M. R. (2014). Do peer firms affect corporate financial policy? The Journal of Finance, 69(1): 139-178.

34. Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, SH. (2006). Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 366-385.

35. Liu, Y., Padgett, C., & Yin, C. (2022). Internal information quality and financial policy peer effects. International Review of Financial Analysis, 84: 102357.

36. Machokoto, M., Gyimah, D., & Ntim, C.G. (2021). Do peer firms influence innovation? The British Accounting Review, 53(5): 1-60.

37. Nikoomaram, H., & Mohammadzadeh Salteh, H. (2010). The relationship between corporate governance and earnings management. Management Sciences, 4(15): 187–210. (In Persian)

38. Qiang, X., )2007(. The effects of contracting, litigation, regulation, and tax costs on conditional and unconditional conservatism: cross-sectional evidence at the firm level. Accounting Review,82(3): 759-796.

39. Ramalingegowda, S., Utke, S., & Yu, Y. (2021). Common institutional ownership and earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(1): 208–241.

40. Rind, A. A., Akbar, S., Boubaker, S., Lajili-Jarjir, S., & Mollah, S. (2022). The role of peer effects in corporate employee welfare policies. British Journal of Management, 33: 1609-1631.

41. Roychowdhury, S. (2010). Discussion of: “acquisition profitability and timely loss recognition” by J. Francis and X. Martin. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49 (1–2): 179–183.

42. Safarzadeh, M. H., Asnaashari, H. and Panahalipour, A. (2024). Peer Effects in Corporate Disclosure Decisions Mohammad Hossein Safarzadeh*: Associate professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. Financial Accounting Research, 16(1): 51-86. (In Persian)

43. Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and investment. The American Economic Review, 80(3): 465-479.

44. Shroff, N., Verdi, R. S., & Yost, B. P. (2017). When does the peer information environment matter? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(2): 183-214.

45. Su, Z., Wang, L., Liao, J., & Cui, X. (2023). Peer effects in corporate advertisement expenditure: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 64: 101808.

46. Venkatesh, P. C., & Chiang, R. (1986). Information asymmetry and the dealer's Bid-Ask spread: A case study of earnings and dividend announcements. The Journal of Finance, 41(5): 1089 -1102.

47. Verrecchia, R. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5: 179–194.

48. Watts, R. L. (2003). Conservatism in accounting part I: Explanations and implications. Accounting Horizons, 17(3): 207–221.

49. Zhang, J. (2008). The contracting benefits of accounting conservatism to lenders and borrowers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(1): 27-54.

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.14 seconds with 34 queries by YEKTAWEB 4741