Search results

This paper aims to investigate the relevance of two groups of valuations models as follows: the accounting models based on the residual income (RIM) and the standard market model, on equity price, return and volatility relevance.

The models are tested on companies traded on Palestine exchange from 2009 to 2018, using panel regression analysis. Two-price and two-return models derived from RIM to compare with the market model and four volatility models.

The standard RIM outperformed other models in equity price modeling. The dividend discount model (DDM) outperformed the rest of the models in terms of return estimation. However, the authors find that the market model can explain equity variance better than RIM and DDM models.

For investors, market beta does not necessarily capture all relevant factors of value and traditional financial statements are still important in providing relevant information and different models are used for different values perspectives (price, return and volatility).

Previous studies focus on comparing the price and return relevance of accounting-based models (RIM and cash flow models). Three aspects differentiate this paper and contribute to its originality, namely, the uniqueness of the context, incorporating the market model into the picture along with the accounting-based models and adding Volatility dimensions of relevance.

There is still an ongoing debate on the value relevance of capital structure and its determinants. Recently the issue has been explored in family firms after being explored in mature firms. This paper investigates the role of institutional investors and the firm's innovation activity in influencing the firm's decision and ability to acquire debt capital.

A large sample of 700 privately-held family firms in Italy from 2010 to 2019. Two analysis techniques are used: panel analysis and path analysis. The value of debt and the debt ratio are used as leverage measures. The value of patent (as a proxy for innovation) and institutional investor are the explanatory variables.

The results show that institutional investors have no relationship with financial leverage measures except when controlling for an interaction variable (Institutional investors × Lombardy region). The patent value is positively correlated with debt; however, the ratio patent-to-asset is negatively related to financial leverage indicating higher risk exposure. The nonlinearity test demonstrates a turning point when the relationship between patent value and debt inverts.

Firms should monitor their innovation activity since excessive innovation increases risk exposure and affects financing opportunities and value. The involvement of institutional investors does not always enhance value.

Existing literature focuses separately on family firm innovations and financial leverage as outcome variables, emphasizing the role of institutional investors in both fields by adopting agency theory and socioemotional wealth framework. In this study, the authors go further by merging both relationships, investigating the dynamics of the institutional-family firm innovation relationship in influencing the firm's capital structure. The authors contribute to the ongoing debate by providing original findings on capital structure, governance and innovation, supported by rigorous methods to enhance family firms' decision-making.