Search results
1 – 10 of over 76000The fundamental change in accounting rules for equity-based compensation (EBC) instituted by SFAS 123, SFAS 123r, and IFRS 2 has allowed for new insights related to a variety of…
Abstract
The fundamental change in accounting rules for equity-based compensation (EBC) instituted by SFAS 123, SFAS 123r, and IFRS 2 has allowed for new insights related to a variety of research questions. This paper discusses the empirical evidence generated in the wake of the new regulation and categorizes it into two broad streams. The first stream encompasses research on the changed use of EBC and the incentives provided. The second stream addresses how firms account for EBC, including the underreporting phenomenon and how it was affected by the mandatory recognition of EBC expenses. I discuss where research delivers unanimous findings versus contradictory results. Using these insights, I make recommendations for further research opportunities in the area of EBC.
Details
Keywords
This study documents that high book‐to‐market (value) and low book‐to‐market (glamour) stock prices react asymmetrically to both common and firm‐specific information…
Abstract
This study documents that high book‐to‐market (value) and low book‐to‐market (glamour) stock prices react asymmetrically to both common and firm‐specific information. Specifically, we find that value stock prices exhibit a considerably slow adjustment to both common and firm‐specific information relative to glamour stocks. The results show that this pattern of diferential price adjustment between value and glamour stocks is mainly driven by the high arbitrage risk borne by value stocks. The evidence is consistent with the arbitrage risk hypothesis, predicting that idiosyncratic risk, a major impediment to arbitrage activity, amplifies the informational loss of value stocks as a result of arbitrageurs’ (informed investors) reduced participation in value stocks because of their inability to fully hedge idiosyncratic risk.
Details
Keywords
Overview All organisations are, in one sense or another, involved in operations; an activity implying transformation or transfer. The major portion of the body of knowledge…
Abstract
Overview All organisations are, in one sense or another, involved in operations; an activity implying transformation or transfer. The major portion of the body of knowledge concerning operations relates to production in manufacturing industry but, increasingly, similar problems are to be found confronting managers in service industry. It is only in the last decade or so that new technology, involving, in particular, the computer, has encouraged an integrated view to be taken of the total business. This has led to greater recognition being given to the strategic potential of the operations function. In order to provide greater insight into operations a number of classifications have been proposed. One of these, which places operations into categories termed factory, job shop, mass service and professional service, is examined. The elements of operations management are introduced under the headings of product, plant, process, procedures and people.
Ghulam Abbas, David G. McMillan and Shouyang Wang
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relation between stock market volatility and macroeconomic fundamentals for G-7 countries using monthly data over the period from July…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relation between stock market volatility and macroeconomic fundamentals for G-7 countries using monthly data over the period from July 1985 to June 2015.
Design/methodology/approach
The empirical methodology is based on two steps: in the first step, the authors obtain the conditional volatilities of stock market returns and macroeconomic variables through the GARCH family of models. The authors also incorporate the impact of early 2000s dotcom and the global financial crises. In the second step, the authors estimate multivariate vector autoregressive model to analyze the dynamic relation between stock markets return and macroeconomic variables.
Findings
The overall results for G-7 countries indicate a weak volatility transmission from macroeconomic factors to stock market volatility at individual level but the collective impact of volatility transmission is highly significant. Although, the results of block exogeneity indicate a bidirectional causality except UK, but the causal linkage is quite weak from stock market to macroeconomic variables. Moreover, the local financial variables excluding interest rate are closely integrated, and the volatility of industrial production growth and oil price are identified as the most significant macroeconomic factors that could possibly influence the directions of stock markets.
Originality/value
This research establishes the nature of the links between stock market and macroeconomic volatility. Research to date has been unable to satisfactorily establish the empirical nature of such links. The authors believe this paper begins to do this.
Details
Keywords
Anna Rubtsova, Rich DeJordy, Mary Ann Glynn and Mayer Zald
In this article, we consider the evolution of the US stock market from the 1770s through the early 20th century. Adopting an institutional lens, we conceive of the stock market as…
Abstract
In this article, we consider the evolution of the US stock market from the 1770s through the early 20th century. Adopting an institutional lens, we conceive of the stock market as an institutional field constituted by socially constructed cultural logics and myths. We focus on the role of the US government as an actor embedded in the stock market field and sharing in the prevailing field logics. Tracking the dominant logics of the stock market field at different historical periods, we examine how these logics impacted government regulatory action upon the stock market, and how those government regulations affected the subsequent logics of the stock market field. Our research included both quantitative content analysis of articles in historical newspapers and qualitative historical analysis of multiple primary and secondary accounts of stock market problems and solutions across more than 150 years. We document how government regulatory action both reflects and shapes the logics of the stock market field.
Cathy Zishang Liu, Xiaoyan Sharon Hu and Kenneth J. Reichelt
This paper empirically examines whether the order of liability and preferred stock accounts presented on the balance sheet is consistent with how the stock market values their…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper empirically examines whether the order of liability and preferred stock accounts presented on the balance sheet is consistent with how the stock market values their riskiness.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper measures a firm’s riskiness with idiosyncratic risk and employs the first-difference design to test the relation between idiosyncratic risk and the order of current liabilities, noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock, respectively. Further, the paper tests whether operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors partition their sample based on the degree of financial distress and investigate whether the results differ between the two subsamples.
Findings
The paper finds that current liabilities are viewed as riskier than noncurrent liabilities and preferred stock is viewed as less risky than current and noncurrent liabilities, consistent with the ordering on the balance sheet. Further, the paper finds that operating liabilities are viewed as riskier than financial liabilities. Finally, the authors find that total liabilities and preferred stock (redeemable and convertible classes) are viewed as riskier for distressed firms than for nondistressed firms.
Originality/value
The authors thoroughly investigate the riskiness of several classes of claims and document that the classification of liabilities and preferred stock classes is relevant to common stockholders for assessing their associated risk.
Details
Keywords
Suvra Roy, Ben R. Marshall, Hung T. Nguyen and Nuttawat Visaltanachoti
The purpose of this study is to investigate (1) how managers respond to stock price crashes, (2) why they respond and (3) how their responses affect shareholders.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate (1) how managers respond to stock price crashes, (2) why they respond and (3) how their responses affect shareholders.
Design/methodology/approach
This study employs a panel regression with various firm-level controls and firm- and year-fixed effects. The sample is comprised of 101,532 firm-year observations with 11,727 unique firms from 1950 to 2019. Using mutual fund flow redemption pressure as an exogenous variable to stock price crashes, the paper provides further evidence of the causality of documented findings.
Findings
Management becomes more focused on improving transparency, raising investment efficiency, reducing agency conflicts and regaining the trust of shareholders by investing in social capital and employee welfare. These actions increase firm value. This study also suggests that management undertakes these actions out of concern for their tenure of employment.
Originality/value
The catalysts of stock price crashes are well documented, but much less is known about what happens following stock price crashes. This study provides more insights into the understanding of corporate crisis management practices following adverse events.
Details
Keywords
The accounting literature has traditionally focused on firm-level studies to examine the capital market implications of earnings and other accounting variables. We first develop…
Abstract
The accounting literature has traditionally focused on firm-level studies to examine the capital market implications of earnings and other accounting variables. We first develop the arguments for studying capital market implications at the aggregate level as well. A central issue is that diversification makes equity investors at least partially and potentially almost completely immune to several firm-level properties of earnings by holding diversified portfolios. Diversification is particularly important when assessing the welfare consequences of random errors in accounting measurement (imperfect accruals) and, to the extent it is independent across firms, of deliberate manipulation (earnings management). Consequently, some firm-level metrics of association, timeliness, value relevance, conservatism and other earnings properties do not map easily into investor welfare. Similarly, earnings-related risk manifests itself to equity investors largely through systematic earnings risk (covariation with aggregate earnings and/or other macroeconomic indicators). We conclude that the design and evaluation of financial reporting must adopt at least in part an aggregate perspective. We then summarize the literature in accounting, economics and finance on aggregate earnings and stock prices. Our review highlights the importance of studying earnings at the aggregate level.
Details
Keywords
Bartolomé Dey´‐Tortella, Luis R. Gomez‐Mejía, Julio O. de Castro and Robert M. Wiseman
Agency theoretic models have been used in the past to justify the use of stock options as an effective incentive alignment mechanism to create a common fate between principals and…
Abstract
Agency theoretic models have been used in the past to justify the use of stock options as an effective incentive alignment mechanism to create a common fate between principals and agents. In this paper, we use behavioral theory to reach the opposite conclusion – namely, that the design characteristics of the typical stock option plan foster perverse incentives for loss‐averse agents, leading to decisions with detrimental consequences for principals. We also consider alternative stock option designs and other equity‐based executive compensation plans and argue that they may suffer from the same problems as traditional stock option plans – namely, that loss‐averse executives will try to protect the endowed value of that equity through self‐serving decisions that do not enhance shareholder wealth.
Details
Keywords
Jinhoo Kim and SooCheong (Shawn) Jang
This study aims to compare the risk‐return characteristics and performance of real estate investment trust (REIT) hotel companies (hotel REITs hereafter) with those of…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to compare the risk‐return characteristics and performance of real estate investment trust (REIT) hotel companies (hotel REITs hereafter) with those of C‐corporation hotel companies (hotel C‐corps hereafter).
Design/methodology/approach
The risk‐return characteristics and performance of hotel REITs and C‐corps were examined by estimating single‐factor and Fama‐French three‐factor asset pricing models for each portfolio. Differences between the hotel REIT and C‐corp estimations were tested using Wald test statistics.
Findings
Little evidence was found that hotel REITs have significantly different risk‐return characteristics and performance than hotel C‐corps, which suggests that hotel REITs and C‐corps are not significantly different in terms of market risk‐return characteristics and performance. The market portfolio had a significantly positive effect on the returns of both hotel REITs and C‐corps. The size and book‐to‐market factors of common stock also had a significant explanatory power for the returns of hotel REITs and C‐corps. Both hotel REITs and C‐corps performed similarly to the market portfolio, on a risk‐adjusted basis, during the 2000s.
Research limitations/implications
Despite the fact that the three‐factor asset pricing model explains a significantly greater proportion of the variation in the hotel firms' returns than the single‐factor asset pricing model, approximately 30 percent of the total variation still remains unexplained.
Practical implications
The risk‐return characteristics and performance of hotel REITs and C‐corps revealed by this study will render hotel investors' decisions between the two organizational structures less complicated. In addition, the findings can be used by portfolio managers to construct a well‐diversified portfolio.
Originality/value
A multifactor asset pricing model was used for the first time in this article to examine the risk‐return characteristics and performance of hotel companies. In addition, the importance of understanding differences between REIT and C‐corp structures in the lodging industry is emphasized.
Details