Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine two channels through which accounting standard differences could affect cross-listing: compliance costs and/or comparability benefits.

The authors use two settings to disentangle the two channels. First, financial reporting requirements are more stringent for cross-listings via direct listings than cross-listings via depositary receipts; as a result, the effect of compliance costs (if any) would be manifested differently in the two venues of cross-listings. Second, some host countries allow foreign firms to report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) without mandating IFRS for domestic firms; compared to host countries that mandate IFRS for both domestic and foreign firms, these IFRS-permitting countries provide a setting to test the importance of comparability benefits while holding constant compliance costs.

The authors find that prior to IFRS adoption, direct listings decrease with accounting standards differences between two countries while depositary receipts increase with such differences, consistent with the costs of complying with host country’s accounting standards affecting firms’ cross-listing decisions. After the harmonization of accounting standards, the authors find that IFRS-mandating host countries gain cross-listings from other IFRS-mandating jurisdictions, while IFRS-permitting countries do not experience such gains. These combined results suggest that accounting related compliance costs and comparability benefits both influence cross-listing decisions.

The paper employs unique settings that enable an in-depth examination of the role of compliance costs vs that of comparability benefits on cross-listing decisions. The settings employed by the authors allow them to disentangle the two channels and provide an important insight that accounting standard-related compliance costs and comparability benefits both affect cross-listing decisions.

To explain the rule changes in Nasdaq’s new Listing Rule IM-5315-1, approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 15, 2019, that permit direct listings on Nasdaq without an initial public offering, similar to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rule changes approved in 2018.

Explains the legislative and regulatory background, historic limitations on direct Nasdaq listings, and de-tailed provisions of Nasdaq’s new Listing Rule IM-5315-1.

The direct listing alternative to an IPO may appeal to cash-rich companies that do not need the publicity or new capital associated with a traditional IPO.

Expert analysis from experienced securities litigation and corporate governance lawyers.

When a foreign firm cross-lists on an exchange in the US, it signals stronger investor protection. This is because cross-listing firms must comply with SEC and exchange regulations, thus producing stronger corporate governance. Consequently, cross-listing increases firm attractiveness to investors and places domestic rivals at a disadvantage. Rivals might respond by mimicking the governance changes resulting from cross-listing. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether firms respond to their rivals’ cross-listings through improvement in governance.

This study uses earnings management as a measure of governance for a set of international firms. The authors track the changes in governance of non-cross-listing firms following their rivals’ cross-listings. The authors employ an event study methodology to assess the spillover effect of a competitor’s cross-listing.

The authors find that rivals exhibit imitative improvements in their governance following a competitor’s cross-listing. This response is immediate and is the strongest in the year of cross-listing. Further, rivals with greater growth opportunities, lower market share, stronger past performance, and larger size demonstrate greater improvements in governance. Rivals make greater improvements in response to more rigorous Level III listings.

This study finds that cross-listing effects are underestimated. It is not only the investors of the listing-firms who benefit from the cross-listing, but also the investors of non-listing rival as competitors try to match the higher governance standard.

This study is the first that examines the intra-industry spillover effect of a cross-listing. This study also expands the analysis of the spillover effect in a new dimension: corporate governance.

As the prolonged effect of the COVID-19 pandemic has materially impacted investment returns significantly, it is more crucial than ever for institutional investors to redefine their property portfolios using assets with better investment management potential and meaningful diversification benefits. The “alternative asset revolution” is gaining traction in the property investment space internationally among institutional investors due to the shifting investment attitudes towards the alternative property sectors. Australia's $205bn healthcare property sector is at the forefront of this revolution due to its societal significance, as well as its attractive investment qualities. This paper investigates the institutional investor management of the Australian healthcare property sector via both the direct and listed channels and empirically analyses its investment attributes.

Using the unique Morgan Stanley Capital International/Property Council of Australia quarterly data set for Australian direct healthcare property over 2006–2020, the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification potential direct healthcare property and listed healthcare were assessed. A constrained mean-variance portfolio optimisation framework was used to develop a six-asset portfolio scenario to analyse the portfolio added-value benefits of both direct healthcare property and listed healthcare in a mixed-asset investment strategy. A similar set of analysis was performed using the post-global financial crisis (GFC) quarterly time series of 2009–2020 to investigate the healthcare asset class' performance dynamics in the post-GFC investment timeframe.

The results indicate that direct healthcare property and listed healthcare offer two key advantages for institutional investors in managing their property portfolios: (1) a stable yet superior risk-adjusted performance and (2) significant portfolio diversification potential in managing their property portfolios. Importantly, both direct healthcare property and listed healthcare provided valuable contributions in strengthening an investment portfolio's performance. The post-GFC sub-period analysis revealed a consistent conclusion regarding the healthcare asset class's performance attributes.

This is the first research that provides an independent empirical examination of the strategic importance of Australian healthcare property as a maturing alternative property sector that can serve both investment and environmental, social and governance goals of investors. This research presents a positive investment prognosis for the Australian healthcare property sector to achieve its institutionalised status as a mainstream asset class of the future.

Chinese companies have recently started listing ADRs in North American stock exchanges and thus offered an alternative venue for Western investors whose access to the Chinese market has largely been limited to the illiquid B shares. Are ADRs a good substitute for investing in Chinese B Shares? We examine characteristics of return distributions for indices of Chinese shares and an index of Chinese ADRs. We also compare efficient frontiers for portfolios including Chinese shares and Chinese ADRs and compute possible portfolio allocations. We find that investing in Chinese ADRs does not provide a risk/return tradeoff similar to direct investment in Chinese stock exchanges.

In this study, we examined the degree to which integrated marketing communication (IMC) might be manifested in services advertising. Using one of Lovelock’s typologies of services as a framework for classifying different services with respect to their tangibility, we examined ads in each of four service product categories to assess advertisers’ efforts to address the tangibility of service offerings via IMC. We found few differences with regard to incorporation of IMC across four service types, with the exception that services advertisements that reflected tangible acts (lawn care, hairstyling) were more highly integrated than services ads for intangible acts (education, retailing, banking). Results are discussed in terms of the implications for developing better services advertising.

“Reference Serials” began in Reference Services Review, April‐June 1974 and last appeared in RSR, October‐December 1974. It was transferred to Serials Review with the inaugural double issue of SR, January‐June 1975, and appeared there through SR, October‐December 1978. With this issue it returns to RSR because the editors determined, after much examination, that this is where it belongs.

UK-Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are an important property investment vehicle, being the fourth largest REIT market globally. The purpose of this paper is to assess the significance, risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification benefits of UK-REITs in a mixed-asset portfolio over 2007−2014. The post-global financial crisis (GFC) recovery of UK-REITs is highlighted.

Using total monthly returns, the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification benefits of UK-REITs over 2007–2014 are assessed. Efficient frontier and asset allocation diagrams are used to assess the role of UK-REITs in a mixed-asset portfolio. Sub-period analysis is used to assess the post-GFC recovery of UK-REITs.

UK-REITs delivered poor risk-adjusted returns compared to UK stocks over 2007–2014 with limited portfolio diversification benefits. However, since the GFC, UK-REITs have delivered strong risk-adjusted returns, but with continued limited portfolio diversification benefits with UK stocks. Importantly, this sees UK-REITs as strongly contributing to the UK mixed-asset portfolio across the portfolio risk spectrum in the post-GFC environment.

UK-REITs are a significant market at a European and global REIT level. The results highlight the major role of UK-REITs in a UK mixed-asset portfolio in the post-GFC context. The strong risk-adjusted performance of UK-REITs compared to UK stocks sees UK-REITs contributing to the mixed-asset portfolio across the portfolio risk spectrum. This is particularly important, as many investors (e.g. small pension funds, defined contribution [DC] funds) use UK-REITs to obtain their property exposure in a liquid format, as well as the increased importance of blended property portfolios of listed property and direct property.

This paper is the first published empirical research analysis of the risk-adjusted performance of UK-REITs and the role of UK-REITs in a mixed-asset portfolio. This research enables empirically validated, more informed and practical property investment decision-making regarding the strategic role of UK-REITs in a portfolio.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the role of securitised real estate within the confines of a multi‐asset investment portfolio and to identify if indeed securitised real estate can afford investors the desired investment benefits of direct property investment whilst mitigating many of the recognised barriers and risks.

The paper employs a suite of analytical techniques; lead‐lag correlations are utilised to examine market dynamics between listed and direct real estate markets across jurisdictions. Grainger causality and co‐integration techniques are applied to examine the nature and extent of relationships between investment markets with optimal portfolio analysis utilised to explore the role of securitised real estate and the optimum weighting allocation within the confines of a multi‐asset investment portfolio.

The findings demonstrated the unresponsive nature of direct real estate markets relative to listed real estate markets – in some jurisdictions the extent of lag can be as much as 12 months. Whilst the research did not identify a Grainger causality relationship between listed and direct property markets across the jurisdictions, co‐integration analysis does infer trend reverting price behaviour in the long run (ten years) between direct and listed real estate markets. Optimal portfolio analysis serves to demonstrate the crucial role of real estate within a multi‐asset portfolio in terms of both mitigating risk and enhancing performance over the ten‐year time series. Indeed, the optimal portfolio analysis highlights the compatibility and complementarity of listed and direct real estate within a multi‐asset investment portfolio.

The question if securitised real estate is a viable proxy for direct property investment is as inconclusive as it is enduring. In contrast to the large embodiment of previous work, this paper adopts an international market perspective depicting the global nature of securitised real estate investment markets whilst also reflecting on the extent of co‐integration between asset classes and across jurisdictions during a period of extreme financial and economic distress.

The purpose of this paper is to establish an optimum mix of liquid, publicly traded assets that may be added to a real estate portfolio, such as those held by open-ended funds, to provide the liquidity required by institutional investors, such as UK defined contribution pension funds. This is with the objective of securing liquidity while not unduly compromising the risk-return characteristics of the underlying asset class. This paper considers the best mix of liquid assets at different thresholds for a liquid asset allocation, with the performance then evaluated against that of a direct real estate benchmark index.

The authors employ a mean-tracking error optimisation approach in determining the optimal combination of liquid assets that can be added to a real estate fund portfolio. The returns of the optimised portfolios are compared to the returns for portfolios that employ the use of either cash or listed real estate alone as a liquidity buffer. Multivariate generalised autoregressive models are used along with rolling correlations and tracking errors to gauge the effectiveness of the various portfolios in tracking the performance of the benchmark index.

The results indicate that applying formal optimisation techniques leads to a considerable improvement in the ability of the returns from blended real estate portfolios to track the underlying real estate market. This is the case at a number of different thresholds for the liquid asset allocation and in cases where a minimum return requirement is imposed.

The results suggest that real estate fund managers can realise the liquidity benefits of incorporating publicly traded assets into their portfolios without sacrificing the ability to deliver real estate-like returns. However, in order to do so, a wider range of liquid assets must be considered, not just cash.

Despite their importance in the real estate investment industry, comparatively few studies have examined the structure and operation of open-ended real estate funds. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the optimal composition of liquid assets within blended or hybrid real estate portfolios.