Search results

This chapter studies the dynamic responses of the conditional quantiles and their applications in macroeconomics and finance. The authors build a multi-equation autoregressive conditional quantile model and propose a new construction of quantile impulse response functions (QIRFs). The tool set of QIRFs provides detailed distributional evolution of an outcome variable to economic shocks. The authors show the left tail of economic activity is the most responsive to monetary policy and financial shocks. The impacts of the shocks on Growth-at-Risk (the 5% quantile of economic activity) during the Global Financial Crisis are assessed. The authors also examine how the economy responds to a hypothetical financial distress scenario.

This study aims to uncover the main predictors of financial distress in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries using a wide range of global factors and asset classes.

This study uses novel approaches that take into account extreme events as well as the nonlinear behavior of time series over various time intervals (i.e. short, medium and long term) and during boom and bust episodes. This study primarily uses the conditional value at risk (CoVaR), the quantile multivariate causality test and the partial wavelet coherence method. The data collection period ranges from March 2014 to September 2022.

US T-bills and gold are the primary factors that can increase financial stability in the GCC region, according to VaRs and CoVaRs. More proof of the predictive value of the oil, gold and wheat markets, as well as geopolitical tensions, uncertainty over US policy and volatility in the oil and US equities markets, is provided by the multivariate causality test. When low extreme quantiles or cross extreme quantiles are taken into account, these results are substantial and sturdy. Lastly, after adjusting for the effect of crude oil prices, this study’s wavelet coherence results indicate diminished long-run connections between the GCC stock market and the chosen global determinants.

Despite the implications of the author’s research for decision makers, there are some limitations mainly related to the selection of Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) GCC ex-Saudi Arabia. Considering the economic importance of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in the region, the author believes that it would be better to include this country in the data to obtain more robust results. In addition, there is evidence in the literature of the existence of heterogeneous responses to global shocks; some markets are more vulnerable than others. This is another limitation of this study, as this study considers the GCC as a bloc rather than each country individually. These limitations could open up further research opportunities.

These findings are important for investors seeking to manage their portfolios under extreme market conditions. They are also important for government policies aimed at mitigating the impact of external shocks.

The study is carried out to analytically reconnoiter geotechnical index properties of subgrade soils as key variables that shape the cost profile of road infrastructure projects in a tropical geographic setting with starkly heterogenous ground conditions.

Using the Niger Delta region, as a point of reference, data on geotechnical index properties of subgrade soils at spatially dispersed locations for 61 completed highway projects are collated. Exploratory statistical tests were carried out to infer significant associations with final project costs before regression analysis. Regression analysis is principally deployed as an explanatory analytical tool, relevant to quantify the sensitivity of highway project costs to the individual and collective impact of geotechnical variables.

Several parameters of expansivity and compressibility exhibited significantly strong associations with the final costs recorded on the highway projects. The statistical analysis further established a cause-effect relationship, whereby small changes in the geotechnical properties of sub-grade soils at project locations, would result in disproportionately large changes in the cost of road construction.

The study findings provide insight into the sensitivity of road construction costs to geotechnical variables, which can serve as a useful input in financial risk analysis for development appraisal and the generation of location adjustment factors.

The study statistically demonstrates location-induced construction cost profiles, triggered in response to the spatial geotechnical variability and occurrence of problem subgrade soils in the humid tropics, which may be different from those traditionally established in studies of cold and temperate climate soils.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

The authors target the interrelationships between non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralized finance (DeFi) and carbon allowances (CA) markets during 2021–2023. The recent shift of crypto and DeFi miners from China (the People's Republic of China, PRC) green hydro energy to dirty fuel energies elsewhere induces investments in carbon offsetting instruments; this is a backdrop to the authors’ investigation.

The quantile vector autoregression (VAR) approach is employed to examine extreme-quantile-connectedness and spillovers among the NFT Index (NFTI), DeFi Pulse Index (DPI), KraneShares Global Carbon Strategy ETF price (KRBN) and the Solactive Carbon Emission Allowances Rolling Futures Total Return Index (SOLCARBT).

At bull markets, DPI is the only consistent net shock transmitter as NFTI transmits innovations only at the most extreme quantile. At bear markets, KRBN and SOLCARBT are net shock transmitters, while NFTI is the only consistent net shock receiver. The receiver-transmitter roles change as a function of the market conditions. The increases in the relative tail dependence correspond to the stress events, which make systemic connectedness augment, turning market-specific idiosyncratic considerations less relevant.

The shift of digital asset miners from the PRC has resulted in excessive fuel energy consumption and aggravated environmental consequences regarding NFTs and DeFi mining. Although there exist numerous studies dedicated to CA trading and its role in carbon print reduction, the direct nexus between NFT, DeFi and CA has never been addressed in the literature. The originality of the authors’ research consists in bridging this void. Results are valuable for portfolio managers in bull and bear markets, as the authors show that connectedness is more intense under such conditions.

Increasing focus on socially responsible investments (SRIs) and green projects in recent times, coupled with the arrival of COVID pandemic, are the main drivers of this study. The authors conduct a post-factum analysis of investor choice between sin and green investments before and through the COVID outbreak.

A passive investor is introduced who seeks maximum risk-adjusted return and/or investment variance. When presented an opportunity to add sin and/or green investments to her initial one-asset market-only investment position, she views and handles this issue as a portfolio problem (MPT). She estimates value-at-risk (VaR) and conditional-value-at-risk (CVaR) for portfolios to account for downside risk.

Green investments offer better overall risk-return optimization in spite of major inter-period differences in return-risk dynamics and substantial downside risk. Portfolios optimized for minimum variance perform just as well as the ones optimized for minimum downside risk. Return and risk have settled at higher levels since the onset of COVID, resulting in shifting the efficient frontier towards north-east in the return-risk space.

The study contributes to the literature in two ways: One, it examines investor choice between sin and green investments during a global health emergency and views this choice against the one made during normal times. Two, instead of using the principles of modern portfolio theory (MPT) explicitly for diversification, the study uses them to identify investor preference for one over the other investment type. This has not been widely done thus far.

This study investigates whether and how chief executive officers (CEOs) with personal risk-taking preference (expressed in owning a pilot license) will act differently when they are vested with additional power serving as board chairs.

Regressions analyses are performed using a sample of Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 1,500 firms with available data during 1996–2009. CEO's risk-taking outcomes are measured using firms' total risk, idiosyncratic risk and research and development expenditures (R&D) investment.

Firms led by pilot CEOs have greater firm risks, yet CEO duality attenuates the relationship. Further channel tests show that CEO duality suppresses CEO's risk-taking tendencies through managers' reputation concerns.

The findings highlight the importance of incorporating human factors into consideration of appropriate governance structures for a firm. Future studies can expand the existing data and further explore the relationship between human factors and governance structures on other firm strategies.

Regulators may focus mainly on regulatory setting based on the “best practice” of governance yet overlook human influence in corporate dynamics. For shareholders, hiring managers with distinct styles will change corporate outcomes but different governance mechanisms could be devised to adapt to CEOs with various personalities.

Prior studies show that both CEO personal preferences and firms' governance structure affect corporate policies, and this paper complements prior studies by exploring how the two may interact to shape corporate policy and its outcomes. This paper also adds to the literature showing that CEO duality could serve a disciplinary role.

Principally, this study aims to test a conceptual framework of the moderating influence of fear of COVID-19 on the following hypothesized relationships (1) quality of work life and bankers' commitment, (2) the mediating spillover effect of job satisfaction in the quality of work life (QWL) and affective commitment relationship.

A quantitative cross-sectional research design is adopted on 318 bankers chosen from four prominent Indian cities. The mediation model is tested through SPSS, PROCESS macro, and AMOS. Conditional process modeling is also administered to test the moderating effect of fear of COVID-19.

The results suggest that the positive effect of QWL on commitment is completely mediated through job satisfaction. Further, the fear induced by COVID-19 negatively moderated the positive direct relation of QWL with commitment and the positive mediating spillover effect of job satisfaction.

The present research is virtually the first to introduce fear of COVID-19 as a psychological construct, to test a moderated mediation model for implications to organizational behavior and human psychology theory and practice. In coalescence of the need satisfaction, spillover, and COR theories, the authors postulate that as spillover between the domains of an individual's life (work, social, financial, personal, and overall life satisfaction) occurs, such effect is calibrated (augmented or attenuated) by the degree of risk/threat/depletion of their resources in the quest for attaining higher valued resources (overall life satisfaction). The moderated mediation mechanism is suggested for replication in other avenues for greater generalizability.

This article examines dynamic volatility spillovers between stock index returns of four main hospitality sub-sectors in US during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. These are tourism and travel, hotel and lodging, recreational services and food and beverages. Volatility spillovers are explicitly used as accurate and informative proxies for risk contagion between sectors during turbulent times.

The authors employ dynamic conditional correlation-generalized autoregression heteroskedasticity (DCC-GARCH) and wavelet coherence analysis (WCA) to analyze the phenomenon. The authors’ timeframe is divided into three main sub-periods, namely the pre-pandemic, the first wave and the second wave periods.

This study’s results reveal immense negative shocks in returns of all four sub-sectors on the Black Monday (8th March 2020). Moreover, high volatility persistence was observed during both waves with an exception of tourism and travel which exhibited lower volatility persistence during the second wave. The authors discovered magnified contagion effects between tourism and travel, hotel and lodgment and recreational services during the first wave of the pandemic with tourism and travel being the main volatility transmitter. Lower magnitudes of spillovers were observed between food and beverages and other sub-sectors with a decoupling effect being evident during the second wave.

This study’s findings contribute to the contagion theory by providing evidence of disproportional volatility spillover among hospitality sub-sectors despite being exposed to similar turbulent economic conditions.

Crucial implications can be drawn from this study’s findings to assist in risk management, asset valuation and portfolio management. The importance of close monitoring, safety measures, international diversification and adequacy of liquid assets during health crises cannot be stresses enough for hospitality firms. Retail investors, speculators and asset managers can take advantage of this study’s findings to design trading strategies and hedge against risk.

A body of knowledge pertaining to effects of crises such as COVID-19 on hospitality stocks has been proliferating. Nonetheless, there is still a relative dearth of empirical literature on volatility spillover between hospitality sub-sectors especially during periods of rising economic uncertainties.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between executive pay disparity and the cost of debt.

The authors use a sample of syndicated bank loans granted to United States (US) listed firms from 1992 to 2014 and adopt the loan yield spread (Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay slice) as the main proxy for the cost of debt (executive pay disparity). The authors also use the Heckman two-stage model to address the sample selection bias and the two-stage least squares and propensity score matching methods to control the potential endogeneity issues. To test different views about executive pay disparity, the authors adopt the cash-to-stock ratio to proxy for managerial risk-shifting incentives.

The authors find that the cost of debt is significantly higher for firms with larger executive pay disparity, which is robust to sample selection bias, endogeneity concerns, alternative measures and various controls. This positive relationship increases with the risk-shifting incentives of CEOs instead of other top executives, which supports the managerial power view, and is stronger for firms with higher levels of financial distress. The findings suggest that creditors view executive pay disparity are associated with higher credit risk and CEO entrenchment.

This paper reveals one “dark” side of executive pay disparity: it increases the cost of debt and identifies a significant role played by CEOs' risk-shifting incentives. The authors provide direct evidence of the relevance of pay differential to corporate credit analysis.