Search results

This paper's purpose is to suggest that manufacturers strategically place soft orders for assembly materials with suppliers in Silk Road Economic Belt countries who probably doubt the realization of the soft orders placed.

First, a two-stage Stackelberg competition is constructed, taking into account the supplier's trust level in formulating the decision process in the assembly supply chain. The authors then provide a buyback contract to coordinate the supply chain, in which the manufacturer obtains enough supplies by sharing some of the perceived risks of not fully trusted suppliers. Furthermore, the authors conduct a numerical study to investigate the influence of trust under a decentralized case and a buyback contract.

The authors found that all supply chain partners in Silk Road Economic Belt countries experience potential losses due to not fully trusting certain conditions. The study also shows that, in Silk Road Economic Belt countries, operating under a buyback contract is better than being without one in terms of assembly supply chain performance.

On the one hand, the authors only consider the asymmetry of demand information without considering that of cost structure information. On the other hand, a natural extension of the paper is to integrate single-period transactions into the multi-period transaction problem setting. As all these issues require substantial effort, the authors reserve them for future exploration.

Doing business with not-fully-trustworthy partners in Silk Road Economic Belt countries is risky, and this study reveals how trust works in global cooperation and with strategic reactions in situations of partial trust.

Two marketing schemes that provide protection against downside price risk are examined. The buy‐back guarantee allows the property purchaser to sell the property back to the developer at the original purchase price, while the guaranteed appreciation plan assures the buyers of a minimum price appreciation at the end of a specified period. Both plans essentially provide the property purchaser with put options with contingent payoffs that differ in terms of the strike price. This paper examines the value of the buy‐back guarantee and the guaranteed appreciation plan as well as providing a framework for evaluating the put options. The key finding is that the time value of such put options is extremely low if they are too deep in‐the‐money and if expected volatility is low. If so, a careful examination of the terms offered suggests that the buy‐back guarantee is expensive. In contrast, the guaranteed appreciation plan can be regarded as a free option because it provides a strike price that is above the purchase price. Hence, property purchasers react favorably to the guaranteed appreciation plan. Finally, implications for marketing and pricing strategies are examined.

An empirical survey, of 136 respondents from UK quoted companies, was conducted with regard to the likely effects of UK corporation tax reform on share buy‐backs, capital investment and financing choices. Overall, 45 per cent expected ACT abolition to lead to an increase in share buy‐backs. Logistic regression analysis links this view to corporate liquidity. The abolition of advance corporation tax is, however, unlikely to have a significant impact upon UK and overseas capital investment, bond issues, bond redemptions, share issues, finance leasing and projected dividend levels. Capital investment and financing choices are likely to be invariant to the combined effects of a reduced corporate tax rate and a quarterly collection period.

Most research on share repurchases is based on the USA. Recently, the rate of share repurchases by UK companies has increased significantly; such a marked increase in activity would suggest a change in strategic factors generating this activity. This paper aims to focus on UK practice, the motivations of UK companies to repurchase shares and compares similar research in the USA.

Strategic motives for share repurchase activity are examined by a questionnaire survey of the finance directors of the top UK 200 companies. The outcome is compared to equivalent US research. The theoretical underpinning of the survey is based on six prominent hypotheses from the academic literature.

The results indicate that a primary motive of share repurchases in the UK is to achieve an optimal capital structure, and that the requirement to cancel shares is fundamental to buy‐back decisions in the UK.

USA/UK comparison has limitations, nevertheless it highlights differences and possible reasons. A follow‐up study in the current market conditions may give further clarity. Also, a survey of smaller quoted companies may further enhance our understanding of the motives.

The likelihood is of this trend being maintained, especially in view of legal development.

Individual respondents indicated that finance directors have a genuine interest in this topic and that further research would be beneficial in both practical and academic use. Share buy‐backs can be an effective part of the overall strategy of a company, however the effects of a repurchase are ultimately short term.

Outstanding unexercised stock options can motivate managers to engage in actions that increase the value of their company’s stock, including buying back their firm’s stock. The objective of granting stock options to managers is to align their interests with stockholders by tying a portion of their compensation to the company’s stock performance. However, unexercised stock options may have unintended consequences by providing managers with a vested interest in artificially boosting stock prices via stock buybacks. The primary objective of this research is to study the main factors that influence firms' buyback decisions amongst hospitality firms at a time when these firms were clamoring for taxpayer bailouts. Results from logistic regression seem to suggest that outstanding executive stock options are a major contributory factor in a firm’s buyback decision. Estimates also indicate that larger, more profitable firms will likely engage in stock buybacks. These findings survive a battery of tests.

The authors use logistic regression to predict the probability of a firm’s buyback decision based on a given set of exogenous explanatory variables.

The paper supports the hypothesis that buyback decisions are guided by the motive to prop support stock prices in the presence of outstanding restricted stock options/warrants granted to firms' executives.

The paper focuses on the buyback decision of U.S. hospitality firms. The results, therefore, might not be generalizable to firms in other industries or countries.

U.S. share repurchase corporate policy and government regulation needs to be revisited given the economic imperative for firms to invest in activities to restore employment and put them in a position for economic recovery.

Public criticism of the size, structure and form (i.e. loan vs grant) of COVID-19 bailouts warrants an examination of whether the factors that drive hospitality and tourism firms to repurchase shares support economic recovery.

Consistent with agency theory, the authors find a significant positive association between outstanding restricted stocks and a firm’s decision to support the stock prices by buying back shares.

The aim of this article is to assess the macroeconomic consequences of some specific aspects of financialization (i.e. share buy-back) using a hybrid post-Keynesian model of growth and distribution based on Kaldorian and Kaleckian characteristics.

The study follows a post-Keynesian approach and deals with financialization issues by implementing several numerical simulations.

The numerical simulations reveal the negative real impacts of massive share repurchases on the rate of accumulation because they immediately siphon off revenues directly intended for investment projects. Moreover, the negative effect of share buy-backs is reinforced especially when firms' investment decisions are more sensitive to a variation in retained earnings. Next, this macro-model also reproduces several well-known figures of the Kaleckian tradition and the paradox of costs.

The present article can be considered as a starting point for further theoretical extensions and requires empirical validation.

The Kaldor-Kalecki macro-model could be useful for policymakers who are interested in containing some of the negative excesses of financialization.

In this paper, we investigate the New Zealand stock market reactions to both on-market and off-market share repurchase programmes for the period 1995–2004. Share repurchases have become more frequent in New Zealand in recent years, though the size and the number of repurchases are still small by international standards. The main reason appears to be the presence of the dividend imputation system which diminishes the tax consequences of cash dividends compared to capital gains. On the whole, we observe that the market reacts positively and significantly to the share repurchase announcements. The magnitude of average abnormal returns for the on- and the off-market repurchases on the announcement day are 3.25 and 3.12% respectively. We further observe the reasons companies undertake stock repurchase are consistent with the investment and free cash flows agency hypotheses.

The paper seeks to examine changes in daily return volatility associated with open market share repurchases.

Univariate analyses, control sample analyses, and multiple regression analyses are employed to explore relations between daily return volatility and a number of variables.

This study finds evidence that an open market share repurchase firm, by actively buying back its shares when the share price falls, reduces daily return volatility. The results suggest that it is the subsequent actual buyback trading activity, not the announcement, that is significantly negatively associated with changes in daily return volatility. CAPM beta, a measure of systematic risk, decreases only when the firm is in the market actively repurchasing its shares.

To the best of the author's knowledge, this study is probably the first to connect changes in daily return volatility to actual buyback trading activities of share repurchase announcing firms. Changes in daily return volatility, or total risk, not only affect systematic risk, but also are important to underlying option holders, arbitrageurs, and investors who hold undiversified portfolios.

In this study, the authors extend upon Brockman et al. (2008), who provide evidence that managers opportunistically accelerate bad news prior to share repurchases, but provide limited evidence that managers withhold good news until after repurchases. The authors examine management forecasts surrounding share repurchases in periods when companies must disclose detailed repurchase information. The authors argue these disclosures increase managers' legal and reputation risks of accelerating bad news, but have a lesser effect on delaying good news.

First, the authors examine whether managers alter the information released to the market before buying back shares by comparing managerial forecasts made within 30 days before the beginning of a repurchasing period with those made outside of this window. Second, the authors examine whether managers are more likely to provide good news forecasts, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, after buying back shares. Lastly, the authors examine the impact of CEO stock ownership on managerial forecasting behavior surrounding share buybacks.

Consistent with the authors’ hypotheses and contrary to Brockman et al. (2008), the authors find limited evidence that the likelihood or magnitude of bad news forecasts is greater in the period before share buybacks. Instead, the authors document that the frequency and magnitude of good news forecasts increase in periods following share buybacks and that these associations are positively moderated by managerial equity incentives. The authors also find that the withholding of good news is associated with lower average repurchase prices and greater repurchase volume. The authors further show that, when litigation risk is greater, managers are less likely to accelerate bad news prior to repurchases and more likely to withhold good news until after. Overall, the study results are consistent with managers balancing the benefits of opportunistic repurchase behavior with the costs.

This study contributes to the management forecast and share repurchase literatures by providing evidence consistent with managers opportunistically releasing earnings forecasts in the period after buying back shares. Most importantly, the authors show that after the rule revision, managers refrain from actively disclosing bad news that carry higher legal costs. Instead, they opt for the omission of good news to repurchase stocks at lower prices. The study results reconcile the conflicting evidence of Brockman et al. (2008) and Ge and Lennox (2011).

The main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether purchases of capital goods through direct offset transactions (OTs) could be a more beneficial form of trade than conventional market transactions (MTs).

An original model of trade is offered where a company from a less‐developed country plans to acquire an advanced technology embodied in capital goods from a developed country's firm. The quality of technology is unknown to the buyer. The model is used to analyse the choice of transactional form made by the purchasing firm.

It is shown that, in the case of substantial uncertainty about the quality of the acquired technology, direct offsets could be the preferred form of exchange. Direct OTs serve as an insurance against the technology of low quality. They become a credible signal of capital goods' quality in the situation of asymmetric information between the seller and the buyer. It is a rational reaction to market imperfections.

The findings imply that, under asymmetric information about the quality of acquired technology, the rational decision makers should replace the conventional MTs with the direct offsets.

The results of the paper contribute to the discussion on the motivation for the use of direct offsets as a transactional form of international trade. The paper should be of interest to practitioners as well as to academics specialising in international business transactions.