Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the sources of variation in firm performance. This is one of the cornerstones of strategy research, i.e. the relative importance of industry and firm-level effects on firm performance. Multilevel analysis is well suited to analyze variance in performance when the data are hierarchically structured (industry segments consist of firms, firms operate within the context of industry segments). The Belgian industry studied is a service industry that consists of about 25 electrical wholesalers. Data were collected from 20 firms during the period 1998–2003 from responses to a questionnaire sent to all the firms in the market. The sample in the data set covers more than 95 percent of the market (in sales), as the missing firms were just fringe competitors. The results show that firm effects explain most of the variance in four performance variables. That bears out the importance of each firm having its own specific, idiosyncratic resources and competences. The explanatory power of firm effects varies by about 30–40 percent while the intra-industry effect explains around 10 percent of the variance. Even though firm effects are dominant, intra-industry effects explain a significant portion of the variance in firm-level performance. The firm effect is smaller than in previous studies. The firm effect varies across the performance measures: firm effects are higher for returns on assets than for profit margins. The industry segment effect (or intra-industry effect) is more independent of the dependent variable. The industry segment effect is in line with previous studies on the strategic group effect. Top managers should carefully choose and monitor the intra-industry domain they are in.

This paper examines the intra‐industry effects of 120 stock split announcements within the insurance industry between 1985 and 2006. Our results of the valuation effects are suggestive of dominant competitive effects for stock splits by insurance companies, especially life insurers, thus indicating possible changes in the competitive balance of the industry. The results of our cross‐sectional analyses suggest that for non‐splitting firms with a high concentration of competition the industry effects are less favorable. Industry effects are more favorable when the valuation effects of the splitting firms are more favorable, when the splitting firms are larger, and when the non‐splitting firms are more similar to the splitting firm. Overall, our results show that both industry‐wide and firm‐specific characteristics are important to explain the cross‐sectional variation in the intra‐industry effects, and that competitive effects and contagion effects are not entirely mutually exclusive.

During the height of the financial/credit crisis of 2008, the US Internal Revenue Service issued temporary guidance that permits REITs (real estate investment trusts) to retain cash and pay “effective stock dividends” through 2009 to meet their income distribution requirement. The purpose of this study is to investigate the policy implications of this guidance on shareholders' wealth and the intra‐industry effects for non‐event, rival REITs when event REITs announced elective stock dividends.

This study identified the announcements of the Revenue Procedures 2008‐68 and 2009‐15 and subsequent six equity REITs announcing the distribution of effective stock dividends in the first quarter of 2009. To assess their implications, this study adopted the event study methodology and multivariate regressions to examine the REIT price reactions and their distribution to the Revenue Procedure announcements and to the elective stock dividend announcements, respectively.

The Revenue Procedure announcements have positive wealth effects on the entire REIT market and REITs with higher leverage enjoy larger abnormal returns. During firm stock dividend announcement windows, non‐event, rival REITs have higher positive price reactions when the event firm and the non‐event firm are not alike and their returns have a low correlation coefficient, when the event firm has a large negative abnormal price reaction, and when the event firm pays cash/stock dividends in the mixture of 40 percent:60 percent, instead of 10 percent:90percent.

The results will help REIT investors to make better decisions. This study produces important implications for investors to pick REITs which are likely to experience higher returns at periods of turmoil when announcements about dividend policy changes are expected.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study looking into intra‐industry effects of REIT dividend announcements and the policy implications of the elective REIT stock dividends permitted by the US Internal Revenue Service. The results of this study show that the informational signals associated with these announcement events are rich and have intra‐industry implications on REIT share prices.

The purpose of this paper is two‐fold: to discuss the key factors determining foreign direct investment (FDI) intra‐industry spillovers and to examine the presence and the extent of these spillovers in Switzerland, by testing them for the services/construction industry, where there is currently a scarcity of evidence.

The assessment of spillovers calls for a detailed analysis of these effects according to the mechanisms by which they occur (namely, the increase in competition, demonstration effects, and worker mobility), and whether the size and the extent of spillovers depend on the interaction between their mechanisms and the existing technological capacities of domestic firms.

The regression results are affirmative, in that domestic firms with high technological capacities appear to gain spillover benefits from FDI heightening competition, while mid‐ and low‐technology firms benefit a lot from demonstration effects. In addition, spillovers for high‐ and mid‐technology firms appear to be largely co‐determined by the level of their human capital. Only domestic firms that invested heavily in absorptive capacity benefit from spillovers.

The evidence on spillover effects has not yet been conclusive. Hence, this paper proposes some components for a research agenda on FDI and intra‐industry spillovers.

The study provides insights for Swiss policy makers about how to promote the beneficial spillover effects of FDI.

The process of spilling over is correctly described in a more satisfactory model and then the impact of this process is accurately identified.

The purpose of this paper is to examine market reactions to private equity placements and intra-industry information spillover effects in the Taiwan Stock Exchange.

The authors first use the market model to compute the abnormal announcement returns. To examine the joint impact of the private investment in public equity (PIPE) purposes and the lead investor industry, the authors regress the issuers’ cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) on the dummy variables of PIPE purposes and the lead investor industry. To study the spillover effects, the authors regress the rivals’ CARs on the issuers’ CARs, PIPE purposes, and the lead investor industry. Finally, the industry Herfindahl index is used as a proxy for the market power of issuers and rivals to examine its impact on the spillover effects.

The authors find that issuing firms experience positive abnormal returns during the announcement period. Issuers enjoy more positive market reactions when the proceeds of offerings are primarily used to establish a long-term strategic alliance or to integrate business and when the lead investor is in the same industry. Furthermore, the authors show that the contagion effect dominates the competitive effect in private equity placements at the aggregate level. At the subsample level, the authors find competitive effect overpowers contagion effect when the purpose of offerings is primarily used to establish a long-term strategic alliance or to integrate business and when the lead investor is in the different industry. Finally, the authors show that rivals with relative lower market power enjoy more positive contagion effects.

First, the analysis documents the simultaneous importance of both the purposes of private offerings and the lead investor’s industry on announcement reactions, which shed new light on the positive abnormal returns during the announcement period. Second, the study adds to the literature on the information spillover effects by analyzing the role played by purposes of offerings and rivals’ market power. This paper provides a more complete picture of the offsetting competitive and contagion effects.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of share repurchase announcements on the stock price of rival firms in the same industry in Vietnam during 2010–2017.

Both event study and t-test are employed to test the effects of share repurchase announcements on rival firms. In addition, cross-sectional analysis by ordinary least square regression is also applied for investigating the heterogeneous effects due to information transfer.

The finding shows that stock repurchase announcements result in a positive and significant valuation effect for both announcing firms and rival firms in Vietnam. Furthermore, the degree of signal to the industry is conditional on the degree of signal about the announcing firms as a contagious effect. Intra-industry effects are more favorable when profit performance of rival firms is good and when leverage of rival firms is low.

Rival firms can seize opportunities surrounding share repurchase announcements in the same industry in Vietnam. However, due to firm characteristics, intra-industry effects of stock repurchases differ among industries.

By examining different methods, the paper attributes valuable results to investigate the stock price behavior of rival firms in the same industry when firms announce stock repurchase in Vietnam.

The existing literature has established the importance of industry concentration in explaining firm performance and information environments. However, little is known about whether and how industry concentration affects investors’ ability to anticipate future earnings. This paper aims to investigate this query by identifying and testing two channels, product market power and intra-industry information transfer, through which industry concentration affects the informativeness of stock returns about future earnings.

The paper measures the informativeness of stock returns about future earnings by the future earnings response coefficient (FERC)). This study estimates the FERC using a firm-level sample from 38 economies.

The authors find that industry concentration significantly enhances investors’ ability to predict future earnings. Further tests show that both product market power and intra-industry information transfer contribute to explaining the positive association between industry concentration and the FERC, with the former playing a more salient role. Finally, the authors show that a country’s effective competition law attenuates the positive impact of industry concentration on the FERC by weakening the economic impact of the two underlying channels.

This study contributes to the growing literature on the price-leading-earnings relation, industry concentration and international corporate governance.

This chapter examines intra-industry spillover effects from inward foreign direct investment (FDI) in Swiss manufacturing firms. It suggests that (a) the assessment of spillovers calls upon a detailed analysis of these effects according to the mechanisms by which they occur (viz. the increase of competition, demonstration effects, and worker mobility), and (b) spillovers depend on the interaction between their mechanisms and the levels of domestic absorptive capacity. Results are affirmative in that high-technology firms benefit from FDI heightening competition, while mid-technology firms benefit from demonstration effects. And low-technology firms, which are not able to benefit from foreign affiliates via demonstration effects alone, manage to reap the benefit via the recruitment of MNCs labor. In addition, only firms which largely invest in absorbing foreign technology benefit from spillovers.

We investigate global competitors’ reaction to the Citicorp–Travelers mega merger announcement and find that global competitors, especially banks in Europe and the US, reacted positively to the Citicorp and Travelers’ merger announcement. The uncertainties created by the investigations into the merger proposal had significant impact on the competitors’ stock price. The announcement that the merger had been consummated also elicited a significantly positive reaction from the rivals following the resolution of uncertainties emanating from the regulatory challenges. The positive reaction by competitors suggests that the merger was a wealth-creating event for the large firms in the financial services industry. The expected benefits outweighed any competitive effects resulting from the merger. The competitors’ reaction was, however, not homogenous. Our cross-sectional analysis shows that the abnormal returns earned by the competitors were higher the larger the competitor. In addition, the abnormal returns were greater for the US rivals. That the global competitors reacted positively to the Citicorp–Travelers mega merger announcement is consistent with our assertion that the merger had ramifications that go beyond regulatory concerns in the US.

Prior research suggests that patents by mobile inventors are at higher risk of generating spillovers between departed and hiring firms. Despite extensive research on how inter-firm inventor mobility affects firms' learning and innovation, little is known about how firms protect their existing intellectual property in the face of inter-firm inventor mobility. We argue that one main way in which firms try to prevent others from appropriating the value of these inventions is by extending the validity of mobile inventors' patents. We derive a set of hypotheses consistent with this argument and test them using longitudinal data on four major American semiconductor firms. Our analyses show that, as hypothesized, both departed and hiring firms are more likely to extend the validity of mobile inventors' patents than is the case for the patents of other, non-mobile inventors. Furthermore, in line with the view that firms use patent renewal to deter other firms from appropriating mobile inventors' knowledge, we find this effect to be stronger where the risks of spillovers are most intense. Our findings extend prior literature by explicating the role of patent renewal as a strategic deterrent against intellectual property appropriation in the face of inter-firm inventor mobility.