Search results

This paper introduces two risk factors which are the covariance between long-run consumption growth and cash flows and the duration of cash flow, and investigates how these factors serve to explain the KOSPI return risk premiums. Based on our empirical results comparing the proposed two-factor cash flow model with the standard benchmark models such as CAPM and Fama-French 3-factor model (FF-3F), using KOSPI equity including de-listed stocks, the cash flow model explains 74.7% of the cross-section of equity risk premium while CAPM and FF-3F model explains 41.9% and 64.1% to the maximum, respectively, showing that the cash-flow model is superior in explaining the risk premium factor structure compared with the benchmark models. Also, the pricing error is only 4% in the two-factor cash flow model, while CAPM and FF-3F are 7.7% and 4.7%, respectively, indicating the cash flow model outperforms the standard benchmark models in pricing error as well. These results can be interpreted that the cross section of the equity risk premium is related to a firm’s cash flow and long-run consumption, and therefore the growth rate of consumption in the long run rather than contemporaneous consumption growth rate has a greater influence on the determination of the risk premium.

The authors analyze the equilibrium effects of non-tradable assets on optimal policy portfolios. They study how the existence of non-tradable assets impacts optimal asset allocation decisions of investors who own such assets and of investors who do not have access to non-tradable assets.

In this theoretical analysis, the authors analyze a model with tradable and non-tradable asset classes whose cash flows are jointly normally distributed. There are two types of investors, with and without access to non-tradable assets. All investors have constant absolute risk aversion preferences. The authors derive closed form solutions for optimal investor demand and equilibrium asset prices. They calibrated the model using US data for listed equity, bonds and private equity. Further, the authors illustrate the sensitivities of quantities and prices with respect to the main parameters.

The study finds that the existence of non-tradable assets has a large impact on optimal asset allocation. Investors with (without) access to non-tradable assets tilt their portfolios of tradable assets away from (toward) assets to which non-tradable assets exhibit positive betas.

The model provides important insights not only for investors holding non-tradable assets such as private equity but also for investors who do not have access to non-tradable assets. Investors who ignore the effect of non-tradable assets when reverse-engineering risk premia from asset covariances and market capitalizations might severely underestimate the equity risk premium.

The authors provide the first comprehensive analysis of the equilibrium effects of non-tradability of some assets on optimal policy portfolios. Thus, this paper goes beyond analyzing the effects of market imperfections on individual portfolio choices.

Building on the risk balancing theory and on recent discussions the appropriateness of using farm income maximization as behavioural assumption, this paper extends the risk balancing framework by accounting for business-household interactions. The purpose of this paper is to theoretically introduce the concept of farm household risk balancing, a theoretical framework in which the farm household sets a constraint on the total household-level risk and balances farm-level and off-farm-level risk.

The paper argues that the risk behaviour of farmers is better understood by considering risk at the household level. Using an analytical framework, equations are derived linking the farm activities, off-farm activities, consumption and business and private liquidity.

The framework shows that a farm household that wants to minimize the risk that total household cash flow falls below consumption needs, may exhibit a wide variety of behavioural responses to changes in the policy and economic environment.

The framework suggests multiple ways for policy makers and individual farmers to support risk management.

Risk management is at the core of the agricultural policy and it is of paramount importance to be able to understand behavioural responses to market and policy instruments. This paper contributes to that by suggesting that the focus of current risk analysis and management studies may be too narrowly focused at the farm level.

Although employee stock ownership may result in increased cash flows due to enhanced organizational productivity or improved governance, this benefit is counterbalanced by the increased risk premium due to a higher correlation between the returns to the firm and the returns to human capital in general. For corporations that employ people with commonplace skills, employee stock ownership results in increased systematic risk, so the optimal level of employee stock ownership is small. When skills are unique, however (so the returns have low correlation with the returns to human capital in general), the optimal level of employee stock ownership is high, with strong incentives for outsourcing – not just the routine easily repeatable tasks but also research, product development, and other highly specialized tasks requiring knowledge not present within the firm. These conclusions hold even without conflicts of interest between owners and employees, but are strengthened in the presence of such conflicts. Incentives for greater employee ownership are further strengthened by the higher costs of becoming or remaining a public corporation that have been imposed by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. This analysis provides a framework for optimizing employee incentives from stock ownership.

The paper looks at the influence of adding more projects on overall investment feasibility under conditions of uncertainty, and how far into the future the project cash flows should be relied upon, given that the project owner expects a reasonable level of feasibility attached to the investment.

The paper presents a formulation for the feasibility of the multi‐project case under uncertainty. A second order moment analysis method is adopted. Existing theory is extended to take into account the presence of multiple projects with a requirement imposed on feasibility by the project owner. In tandem with the theoretical development, example case study numerical results are presented.

With a conventional deterministic discounted cash flow analysis, the feasibility calculations change little in going from one to many projects. However with uncertainty attached, the feasibility calculations need to be reworked and become more complex, the issue of feasibility becomes less transparent on going from one to many projects, distinct feasibility transition points disappear, and feasibility is found to vary over the projects' time horizons.

The need for the analysis given in this paper resulted from an actual investment decision. The paper formulation provides interesting insight into feasibility calculations, and will be of use to practitioners engaged in front‐end project investment risk work.

The paper provides original commentary on the feasibility of multiple projects and the time‐variant nature of feasibility.

This article is based on responses to the 1982 general invitation from the Review Board for Government Contracts. The authors' main contention is that the pricing of government contracts has hitherto been deficient in at least two fundamental respects — the use of the historic cost accounting model as a computational framework for the costing and pricing of non‐competitive Government contracts and the use of ex post accounting rates of return for estimating target rates of return.

In the context of public-private partnerships (PPPs), it has been argued that the standard valuation framework produces a paradox whereby government appears to be made better off by taking on more systematic risk. This has led to a range of approaches being applied in practice, none of which are consistent with the standard valuation approach. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that these approaches are flawed and unnecessary.

The authors step through the proposed alternative valuation approaches and demonstrate their inconsistencies and illogical outcomes, using theory, logic and mathematical proof.

In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the proposed (alternative) approaches suffer from internal inconsistencies and produce illogical outcomes in some cases. The authors also show that there is no problem with the current accepted theory and that the apparent paradox is not the result of a deficiency in the current theory but is rather caused by its misapplication in practice. In particular, the authors show that the systematic risk of cash flows is frequently mis-estimated, and the correction of this error solves the apparent paradox.

Over the past 20 years, PPP activity around the globe amounts to many billions of dollars. Decisions on major infrastructure funding are of enormous social and economic importance.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the flaws and internal inconsistencies with proposed valuation framework alternatives for the purposes of evaluating PPPs.

Purpose – This chapter studies a two-country model in which firms have the opportunity to invest directly both in home and foreign activities while operating in the context of imperfectly competitive markets for final goods and services. The model is an extension of Choi (1989).

Methodology approach – The firm is assumed to maximize the expected utility derived from the sequence of present and future levels of wealth, subject to budget constraint. We apply the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman approach.

Findings – In this chapter we show that the degree of imperfect competition may be different in the two countries and measured by the elasticity of the demand functions. In this model, we derive the optimal proportion of foreign investment, which is divided into two ratios. The first ratio is a hedging position. The second one is a speculative position.

Originality – Our model shows the role of alternative finance in the presence of differences between investment in two cases, namely, the case of market competition and the case of no market imperfections. This effect is shown by investment proportion and asset pricing relation.

This study aims to provide insights into US and Australian analysts' views regarding the relative importance of disclosing the direct method (DM) or indirect method (IM) statement of cash flows and forecasting firm performance.

Evidence is collected from responses to 104 surveys and 52 interviews completed by US and Australian analysts from 2017 to 2022. The survey and interview questions are developed with reference to the literature.

US and Australian analysts believe that the DM format provides incremental benefits compared to the IM for (1) confirming the reliability of earnings; (2) improving earnings confidence; (3) more accurate ex ante forecasts of operating cash flow and earnings; and (4) identifying opportunistic accruals manipulation. Analysts view that DM disclosure can lower firm-level cost of equity, although US interviewees more uniformly expect lower costs of equity under DM disclosure when firms yield low earnings quality. DM disclosure is also more important during unstable economic periods, as proxied by COVID-19.

Limited research currently exists regarding disclosure of the DM or IM and its impact on analysts' forecasting accuracy, earnings quality, economic uncertainty and cost of equity. Previous research has relied on archival research to examine differences between the DM and IM methods and are limited by data availability. Our findings are particularly relevant to the US market with few US firms reporting the DM format.

The author in this paper identifies the gap between analytical and empirical studies regarding the relation between disclosure and cost of capital. Distinct from prior reviews, this paper focuses on the various assumptions of theoretical models and the insights and key results derived from those assumptions. The author also reviews how these theoretical papers are “applied” in empirical studies.

The author systematically analyzes both theoretical and empirical papers that investigate disclosure and cost of capital between 2000 and 2020.

The author shows (1) that there is ample room for theorists to move from the pure exchange economy to the production-based economy setting to investigate the real effect of disclosure on the cost of capital; (2) structural estimation, although still nascent, is a promising direction to build the bridge between analytical and empirical studies in disclosure and cost of capital, and (3) besides ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions, researchers are encouraged to think outside the box regarding how to investigate the interplay between disclosure and cost of capital via a Deep Neural Network design.

The author provides a unique perspective and synthesized knowledge in the relations of disclosure and cost of capital.