Search results

This study proposes a novel measure for management’s horizon (short-termism or myopia vs long-termism or hyperopia) derived from easily obtainable firm-level accounting and stock market performance data. The authors use the measure to explore the impact of managements’ horizon on firms’ investment efficiency.

The authors rely on two commonly used but uncorrelated measures of management performance: accounting performance (return on capital employed, ROCE) and stock market performance (average abnormal return, AAR). The authors combine these measures to develop a multidimensional framework for performance, which classifies firms into four groups: efficient (high accounting and high market performance), poor (low accounting and low market performance), myopic (high accounting and low market performance) and hyperopic (low accounting and high market performance). The authors validate this framework and deploy it to explore the relationship between horizon and firms’ investment efficiency.

In validation tests, the authors show that management myopia (hyperopia) explains firms’ decision to cut (grow) research and development investments. Further, as expected, myopic (hyperopic) firms are associated with significantly more (less) accrual and real earnings management. The empirical tests on the link between horizon and investment efficiency suggest that myopic managers cut new investments while their hyperopic counterparts grow the same. Ultimately, the authors find that myopia (hyperopia) exacerbates(mitigates) the over-investment of free cash flow problem.

The authors introduce a framework for assessing management’s horizon using easily obtainable measures of performance. The framework explains inconsistencies in prior empirical research using different measures of performance (accounting versus market). The authors demonstrate its utility by showing that the measure explains decisions around research and development investment, earnings management and firm investments.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of equity market misvaluation on manager behavior. Using a sample of 535 French-listed over 2000–2018, the authors analyze whether corporate investment decision is sensitive to equity market overvaluation.

The study adopts market-to-book (M/B) decomposition developed by Rhodes-Kropf and Viswanathan (2004, RKV) that proxies for market misvaluation at the firm and industry levels. The authors conducted a long-term performance analysis via a portfolio sorting procedure and a Carhart (1997) four-factor pricing model. The authors tested the relationship between equity misvaluation, corporate investment decisions and equity issuance. The authors ran several robustness tests.

The empirical results show that equity market misvaluation affects corporate investment positively as the stock price deviates further away from its fundamental. Based on market timing theory, the authors find that corporate investment occurs in periods of high valuation motivated by equity issuance to benefit from the low cost of capital. This effect is more prominent for financially constrained firms. Consistent with the catering channel, the authors find that the misvaluation-investment nexus is more pronounced in firms with short-horizon investors. By examining the stocks’ long-term performance of misvalued firms, via a sorting portfolio procedure, the authors find that undervalued firms outperform and generate higher abnormal returns (Jensen’s alpha) than overvalued firms, suggesting that mispricing-driven investment appear to be short-lived and lead to lower return in the long term.

Corporate decision-makers and governance structures should pay attention to the rationality of the corporate investment decision in the context of equity market misvaluation. Managers who focus on maximizing the stock market value in the short-run at the expense of its long-term performance must give preference to value-creating investment, not driven by an external mechanism such as equity market mispricing. More generally, investors and portfolio managers must take into account the market mispricing process in decision-making. Nonetheless, from the portfolio sorting perspective, decision-makers must act in terms of high governance quality to mitigate suboptimal investment due to stock market mispricing (Jensen, 2005). Finally, equity market overvaluation, leading managers to invest via equity financing in particular, should be a signal to attract investors’ attention to seize the window of opportunity and embark on a short-term portfolio strategy. Such a strategy promises high returns in the short term.

This paper investigates jointly two theoretical channels: equity market timing and catering. The authors propose for the analysis three components of the M/B decomposition to dissociate market misvaluation at the firm and industry level from the fundamental component of market value (growth). This procedure provides a better understanding of the role of firm and industry misvaluation in explaining corporate investments. The authors provide evidence of the equity market misvaluation via a portfolio sorting procedure and a Carhart (1997) four-factor pricing model. The authors examine the effect of misvaluation on both the investment and the financing decisions.

With the growing concern of various sectors of society regarding environmental issues and the promotion of sustainable development, green technology innovation is generally considered to be conducive to the long-term development of enterprises. However, because of the existence of agency problems, managers may have shortsighted behaviors. Then how will managers' shortsighted behaviors affect enterprises' green technology innovation?

This paper uses machine learning-based text analysis methods to construct a manager myopia index based on the data from A-share listed companies on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges from 2015 to 2020. We examine the impact of manager myopia on green technology innovation in companies.

Our study finds that manager myopia significantly inhibits green technology innovation in companies. However, when multiple large shareholders coexist and the proportion of institutional investors' holdings is high, it can alleviate the inhibitory effect of manager myopia on green innovation. Heterogeneity tests show that the impact of manager myopia on green technology innovation is relatively significant in non-state-owned and manufacturing companies, as well as in the electricity industry. Robustness tests demonstrate that our conclusions remain valid after using propensity score matching to eliminate endogeneity problems.

From the perspective of corporate governance, this paper incorporates managers' shortsightedness, multiple large shareholders and institutional investors' shareholding ratios into the same logical framework, analyzes their internal mechanisms, helps improve corporate governance, enhances green innovation capabilities and has strong implications for the implementation of national innovation-driven development strategies and the achievement of “carbon peak” and “carbon neutrality” targets.

This study aims to investigate how a French multinational enterprise (MNE) is developing employee stock ownership (ESO) in its subsidiaries in Peru and Mexico, both Latin American countries with deep social and economic inequalities.

This is a qualitative case study which conducted interviews with representatives of the French MNE and its subsidiaries in Peru and Mexico.

The employee stock purchase plans offered by the company to its employees support the achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) 1, 8 and 10 in these countries.

The authors argue that MNEs could become flagships in the SDG achievement in emerging economies.

By contributing to better workplace outcomes and enhanced corporate performance, ESO is in line with SDG 8. ESO also fulfills SDGs 1 and 10 by allowing employees to build up savings and wealth, whose lack is the main source of inequality and poverty. Reciprocity and binary economics theories explain these relationships.

This paper aims to integrate insights from the behavioral theory of the firm and the dynamic capabilities perspective to explain how the historical and social attainment discrepancies motivate firms to change. Specifically, this paper proposes that a negative historical attainment discrepancy encourages the firm to engage in strategic change to solve its performance problems. In contrast, this paper advanced that a positive social attainment discrepancy motivates strategic change as a mechanism to bolster the firm’s position within the industry. Further, this paper integrated the moderating effects of industry dynamism and industry munificence.

This paper tests hypotheses using panel data on 2,435 US public firms over the years from 1996 to 2018. This paper uses a fixed-effects regression model to empirically test these hypotheses.

This paper finds empirical support for the effects of both the negative historical attainment discrepancy and the positive social attainment discrepancy on the firm’s tendency to engage in strategic change. As for the hypothesized moderating effects, this paper finds that industry munificence accentuated the effects of both attainment discrepancies on the firm’s tendency to engage in strategic change. However, the results do not support the hypothesized moderating effect of industry dynamism on either of these attainment discrepancies.

This paper contributes to the research on the separate effects of historical and social comparisons within the context of strategic change. Further, the paper bolsters our understanding of how performance feedback increases the firm’s tendency to change. Finally, the paper integrates theoretical views from the behavioral theory of the firm and the dynamic capabilities perspective on how socially high-performing firms may build and sustain their competitive advantage through organizational change.

This paper provides a structural model to value startup companies and determine the optimal level of research and development (R&D) spending by these companies.

This paper describes a new variant of float-the-money options, which can act as a financial instrument for financing R&D expenses for a specific time horizon or development stage, allowing the investor to share in the startup's value appreciation over that duration. Another innovation of this paper is that it develops a structural model for evaluating optimal level of R&D spending over a given time horizon. The paper deploys the Gompertz-Cox model for the R&D project outcomes, which facilitates investigation of how increased level of R&D input can enhance the company's value growth.

The author first introduces a time-varying drift term into standard Black-Scholes model to account for the varying growth rates of the startup at different stages, and the author interprets venture capital's investment in the startup as a “float-the-money” option. The author then incorporates the probabilities of startup failures at multiple stages into their financial valuation. The author gets a closed-form pricing formula for the contingent option of value appreciation. Finally, the author utilizes Cox proportional hazards model to analyze the optimal level of R&D input that maximizes the return on investment.

The integrated contingent claims model links the change in the financial valuation of startups with the incremental R&D spending. The Gompertz-Cox contingency model for R&D success rate is used to quantify the optimal level of R&D input. This model assumption may be simplistic, but nevertheless illustrative.

Once supplemented with actual transaction data, the model can serve as a reference benchmark valuation of new project deals and previously invested projects seeking exit.

The integrated structural model can potentially have much wider applications beyond valuation of startup companies. For instance, in valuing a company's risk management, the level of R&D spending in the model can be replaced by the company's budget for risk management. As another promising application, in evaluating a country's economic growth rate in the face of rising climate risks, the level of R&D spending in this paper can be replaced by a country's investment in addressing climate risks.

This paper is the first to develop an integrated valuation model for startups by combining the real-world R&D project contingencies with risk-neutral valuation of the potential payoffs.

Institutional investors are major shareholders in publicly traded firms and play crucial roles in the financial and governance aspects of these firms. Despite their importance, little is known about their role in internal auditing. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the relationship between institutional investors’ ownership and investment in the internal audit function (IAF).

The study uses ordinary least squares regressions with two-way cluster-robust standard errors (firm and year) to estimate the relationship between institutional investors’ ownership and investment in IAF for Malaysian listed firms between 2009 and 2020.

The findings show that companies with higher levels of institutional ownership invest more in IAF, suggesting that institutional investors can effectively monitor managers due to their large holdings. Moreover, both transient and dedicated institutional investors are more likely to invest in IAF.

The results highlight the importance of institutional investors as a significant determinant of investment in IAF, which can aid regulators and managers in understanding the institutional investors’ role in governing and optimizing the efficient use of a firm’s resources. The findings also provide insight into institutional investors’ behavior regarding monitoring systems, which may inspire regulators and policymakers to consider increasing institutional investors’ participation to enhance governance structures.

This study explores whether the unique organizational form of family firms helps to mitigate the negative effects caused by the announcement of product recalls.

The authors use an event study, for a sample of 2,576 product recalls in the United States (US) automobile industry, between January 2010 and June 2021.

The authors found that stock market's reaction to a product recall announcement is less negative for family firms. This superior performance is partially driven by the family firms' long-term investment horizons and higher strategic emphasis on product quality. However, the relationship between family ownership and cumulative abnormal returns around product recall announcements is nonlinear as the impact of family ownership starts by being positive but becomes negative for higher levels of family ownership. The authors also find that family firm's chief executive officer (CEO) and managerial ownership influence positively the stock market reaction to product recall announcements.

This work has several implications for family firms' management as well as for investors and financial analysts. First, as higher managerial ownership is associated with a greater emphasis on product quality, decreasing stock market losses when a product recall occurs, family firms should consider increasing equity-based compensation. Second, as there seems to exist an optimal proportion of family ownership, family firms should consider the risks of increasing too much their ownership share. Third, investors and financial analysts can use the results in the study to help them in their investment and trading decisions in the stock market.

The authors extend the knowledge of product recalls by studying the under-researched role of the flexible, internally focused culture of family businesses on the stock market reaction to product recalls.

Applying universal ownership theory and drawing on a multiplecase study design, this study aims to analyze what drives institutional investors to engage with government entities and what challenges they find in the process.

The authors relied on document analysis and conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with representatives from asset owners, asset managers, investor associations and academia.

The authors identify a trend where investors conduct policy engagement to fulfill their fiduciary duty, improve investment risk management and create an enabling environment for sustainable investments. As for engagement challenges, investors report the longer-term horizon, a perceived limited influence toward governments, the need for capacity building for investors and governments, as well as the difficulty in accessing government representatives.

This research contributes to filling a gap in the literature on this new form of investor activism, as a growing number of investors engage with sovereign entities on environmental, social and governance issues.

This study adopts a new macro-perspective to explore the complex and dynamic links between financial instability and the Euro-American green equity market. Its primary focus and novelty is to shed light on the non-linear and asymmetric characteristics of dependence, causality, and contagion within various time and frequency domains. Specifically, the authors scrutinize how financial instability in the U.S. and EU interacts with their respective green stock markets, while also examining the cross-impact on each other's green equity markets. The analysis is carried out over short-, medium- and long-term horizons and under different market conditions, ranging from bearish and normal to bullish.

This study breaks new ground by employing a model-free and non-parametric approach to examine the relationship between the instability of the global financial system and the green equity market performance in the U.S. and EU. This study's methodology offers new insights into the time- and frequency-varying relationship, using wavelet coherence supplemented with quantile causality and quantile-on-quantile regression analyses. This advanced approach unveils non-linear and asymmetric causal links and characterizes their signs, effectively distinguishing between bearish, normal, and bullish market conditions, as well as short-, medium- and long-term horizons.

This study's findings reveal that financial instability has a strong negative impact on the green stock market over the medium to long term, in bullish market conditions and in times of economic and extra-economic turbulence. This implies that green stocks cannot be an effective hedge against systemic financial risk during periods of turbulence and euphoria. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that U.S. financial instability not only affects the U.S. green equity market, but also has significant spillover effects on the EU market and vice versa, indicating the existence of a Euro-American contagion mechanism. Interestingly, this study's results also reveal a positive correlation between financial instability and green equity market performance under normal market conditions, suggesting a possible feedback loop effect.

This study represents pioneering work in exploring the non-linear and asymmetric connections between financial instability and the Euro-American stock markets. Notably, it discerns how these interactions vary over the short, medium, and long term and under different market conditions, including bearish, normal, and bullish states. Understanding these characteristics is instrumental in shaping effective policies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including access to clean, affordable energy (SDG 7), and to preserve the stability of the international financial system.