Now is the Time: The Impact of Linguistic Time Reference on Corporate Default Risk

The research problem This paper assesses whether and how people’s perceptions of time — strong future time reference (FTR) versus weak FTR — affect corporate default risk. Motivation or theoretical reasoning Studies have shown that default risk varies across firms, regions, and countries, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of the contributing factors. Traditional studies focus on how firm-level, industry-level, national and international economic and financial variables shape corporate default risk, but they fail to explain cross-country and cross-regional differences in corporate default risk from the perspective of informal institutions, particularly, language. This study takes the first step to examine whether and how future-oriented language shapes corporate default risk. The test hypotheses We first tested whether strong-FTR language decreases corporate default risk. We further tested whether the effect of strong-FTR language on default risk depends on firms’ level of information transparency. In addition, we tested whether the effect of strong-FTR language on default risk depends on a country’s disclosure requirements. Lastly, we tested whether the effect of strong-FTR language on default risk depends on a country’s control of corruption. Target population We find that corporate default risk is significantly higher in regions dominated by speakers of weak-FTR languages, using a comprehensive sample of firms in 36 countries with 180,013 observations spanning from 1988 to 2017. Adopted methodology Ordinary least square regressions were used in this study. Analyses Corporate default risk is measured by two proxies of firm probability of default, following Merton [(1974) Journal of Finance, 29(2), 449–470] and Lee and Lin [(2012) Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions, and Money, 22(4), 973–989]. Our independent variable is Strong FTR, which equals 1 if a language belongs to the strong-FTR language family, as defined by the European Science Foundation’s Typology of Languages in Europe (EUROTYP) project. If a language does not require “obligatory [FTR] use in (main clause) prediction-based contexts” [Dahl (2000)Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, O. Dahl (Ed.), pp. 309–328], then we put this language into the weak-FTR group. On the other hand, if a language does have the above-mentioned requirement, then it belongs to the strong-FTR group. Findings We found that corporate default risk is significantly higher in regions dominated by speakers of weak-FTR languages. Furthermore, the FTR effect on default risk is weakened in countries with stronger formal institutions (e.g., high disclosure quality, greater transparency, and less corruption). Our results introduce a new explanation for heterogeneity in corporate default risk, provide insights about whether language is an economic institution, and adds to research on the effects of languages on economic and financial outcomes.