Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Article
Publication date: 5 April 2024

Alexander Conrad Culley

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the effectiveness of four derivative exchanges’ enforcement efforts since 2007. These exchanges include the Commodity Exchange Inc. and…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the effectiveness of four derivative exchanges’ enforcement efforts since 2007. These exchanges include the Commodity Exchange Inc. and ICE Futures US from the United States and ICE Futures Europe and the London Metal Exchange from the UK.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper examines 799 enforcement notices published by four exchanges through a behavioural science lens: HUMANS conceived by Hunt (2023) in Humanizing Rules: Bringing Behavioural Science to Ethics and Compliance.

Findings

The paper finds the effectiveness of the exchanges’ enforcement efforts to be a mixed picture as financial markets transition from the digital to artificial intelligence era. Humans remain a key cog in the wheel of market participants’ trading operations, albeit their roles have changed. Despite this, some elements of exchanges’ enforcement regimes have not kept pace with the move from floor to remote trading. However, in other respects, their efforts are or should be, effective, at least in behavioural terms.

Research limitations/implications

The paper’s findings are arguably limited to exchanges based in Anglophone jurisdictions. The information published by the exchanges is variable, making “like-for-like” comparisons difficult in some areas.

Practical implications

The paper makes several recommendations that, if adopted, could help exchanges to increase the potency of their enforcement programmes.

Originality/value

A key aim of the paper is to shift the lens through which the debate concerning the efficacy of exchange-level oversight is conducted. Hitherto, a legal lens has been used, whereas this paper uses a behavioural lens.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 9 April 2024

Jasper Grashuis and Keri Jacobs

The objective of the study is to explore explanations for the capital structure compositions of farmer cooperatives, which have a unique equity structure with allocated equity as…

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of the study is to explore explanations for the capital structure compositions of farmer cooperatives, which have a unique equity structure with allocated equity as well as unallocated equity.

Design/methodology/approach

Data came from a panel of US grain marketing and input supply cooperatives for the 2010–2020 period. The study is concerned with the proportions of debt, allocated equity and unallocated equity, which requires the application of a fractional multinomial panel model to ensure predictions fall within the observed data range (i.e. 0–1).

Findings

Larger cooperatives have relatively high debt proportions. Diversification of the product portfolio has a positive effect on the debt proportion. Profitability is associated with higher debt proportions in input supply cooperatives and higher allocated equity proportions in grain marketing cooperatives. Over time, the proportion of unallocated equity increased. Overall, some results differ across grain marketing and input supply cooperatives.

Practical implications

Increasing proportions of unallocated equity warrant a debate about the future value of ownership and governance by members of farmer cooperatives.

Originality/value

Previous empirical investigations of the capital structure compositions of cooperatives lacked a distinction between allocated and unallocated equity. Our results show that the proportions of the two equity accounts respond differently to given predictors. Furthermore, much of the prior empirical literature fails to separate cooperatives on the basis of economic activities (i.e. marketing, supply and mixed).

Details

Agricultural Finance Review, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0002-1466

Keywords

Open Access
Article
Publication date: 19 February 2024

Halina Waniak-Michalak and Jan Michalak

The study aims to determine whether a relationship exists between the potential significance of corporate controversies for stakeholders and how organisations respond to them in…

Abstract

Purpose

The study aims to determine whether a relationship exists between the potential significance of corporate controversies for stakeholders and how organisations respond to them in their annual and sustainability reports.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper employs content analysis on annual and sustainability reports of 48 listed companies from the Refinitiv database. The logit regression was used to estimate the model.

Findings

The study revealed that the main factors increasing the probability of a controversial issue being addressed in a corporate report are the controversy’s potential significance, companies’ financial performance and lawsuits.

Research limitations/implications

Our study has three major limitations. These are a relatively small sample of companies and reports, focusing on disclosures made in corporate reports and omitting other channels of communication, for example, social media, and a certain amount of subjectivity in the process of coding information.

Social implications

Former studies show that corporations face a serious risk of their hypocritical strategies becoming too evident for stakeholder groups. Our findings suggest that the risk is already materialising and may undermine the idea of CSR and sustainability reporting.

Originality/value

Our research focuses on high-profile adverse incidents widely reported in the media, the omission of which from corporate reports seems to constitute a particular case of organised hypocrite. It also demonstrates that companies use an impression management strategy to defuse adverse publicity and that major controversies cause minor ones to be omitted from their reports.

Details

Central European Management Journal, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2658-0845

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 24 May 2022

Uguanyi Jacinta Nneka, Chi Aloysius Ngong, Okeke Augustina Ugoada and Josaphat Uchechukwu Joe Onwumere

This paper examines the effect of bond market development on economic growth of selected developing countries from 1990 to 2020. Previous studies provide inconsistent results on…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper examines the effect of bond market development on economic growth of selected developing countries from 1990 to 2020. Previous studies provide inconsistent results on the effect of bond market development on economic growth. Some results reveal positive effects while others show negative effects of bond market development on economic growth. These conflicting findings have motivated research.

Design/methodology/approach

The autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) and co-integration methods are used for analysis. The gross domestic product per capita proxies economic growth while government bond capitalisation and corporate bond capitalisation measure bond market development.

Findings

The findings unveil a long-term effect within the series. The results disclose that government bond capitalisation, trade openness and inflation positively affect economic growth while corporate bond capitalisation and domestic credit to the private sector presents negative effects on economic growth.

Research limitations/implications

The results propose that the governments should issue more bonds to raise funds for long-term economic growth initiatives. The governments should promote bond market development such that the corporate bonds issued boost economic growth by limiting lengthy documentations and bottlenecks in the bond market listing and issue procedures. The policymakers and regulatory authorities should implement policies which attract investors and encourage companies' listing in the countries' bond markets.

Originality/value

The study’s findings add value that government bond capitalisation positively impacts economic growth, while corporate bond capitalisation negatively affects economic growth in developing countries.

Details

Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1026-4116

Keywords

1 – 4 of 4