Search results

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.

The equity premium of the S&P 500 index is explained in this paper by several variables that can be grouped into fundamental, behavioral, and macroeconomic factors. We hypothesize that the statistical significance of these variables changes across economic regimes. The three regimes we consider are the low‐volatility, medium‐volatility, and high‐volatility regimes in contrast to previous studies that do not differentiate across economic regimes. By using the three‐state Markov switching regime econometric methodology, we confirm that the statistical significance of the independent variables representing fundamentals, macroeconomic conditions, and a behavioral variable changes across economic regimes. Our findings offer an improved understanding of what moves the equity premium across economic regimes than what we can learn from single‐equation estimation. Our results also confirm the significance of momentum as a behavioral variable across all economic regimes

The paper aims to provide the prospects and challenges of cooperation concerning natural gas (NG) resources between the European Union (EU) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), based on a “critical review” of the current state of the GCC region regarding NG production, consumption, trading movements, policy framework and existing/planned projects and programs for each GCC country individually.

The methodological four‐steps approach adopted is based on the context of the project “Creation and Operation of an EU‐GCC Clean Energy Network” (www.eugcc‐cleanergy.net). This paper summarizes the dynamic NG supply/demand situation in the GCC countries in a structured way, touching upon some pertinent policy issues and relating specific projects.

The key finding of the paper is the assessment of GCC countries' potential for future collaboration, especially with the EU. The collaboration opportunities, based on a detailed overview of existing and planned practices in the GCC countries, linking the policy to the practical commercial level, as well as the national system context is elaborated.

To the best of their knowledge, a study focused on the EU‐GCC cooperation for NG is not present in the literature. This study highlights how policy measures differ depending on the supply/demand situation of a particular country, bringing a unique perspective on how diverse the GCC region really is. Moreover, based on the specific energy projects presented, the policy level is linked to the practical commercial level. The presented approach and the related outcomes support the policy makers to enable the environment needed for concrete NG cooperation actions of mutual benefit for both regions.

The essence of the modern asset‐market approach to the analysis of exchange rate behavior includes the role of the trade balance account. We examine the relationship between exchange rate changes and US trade balance announcements. Statistically significant exchange rate adjustments to these announcements are documented using for the first time the comparison period approach to testing the significance of trade balance announcements on exchange rates. The evidence is consistent with the predictions of the modern asset‐market exchange rate model. There is also evidence that the foreign exchange market is more sensitive to increasing rather than decreasing trade balance deficit announcements. To date, a number of theoretical papers have investigated the possible sources of the exchange rate determination process (see, Dornbusch [1976,1980], Dornbusch and Fisher [1980], Frenkel [1976, 1981], Kouri [1976], and Mussa [1982], among others). There is no consensus on how exchange rates are determined and why they have exhibited increased volatility lately. The interpretations vary widely among the various theories, ranging from the flow‐market approach to the modern asset‐market view. The asset‐market approach of exchange rates is based on the principle that the current value of the exchange rate (i.e. the relative price of two national currencies) is influenced not only by current economic conditions but also by expectations of its future value and, therefore, by the information that underlies these expectations. The asset‐market literature on the determination of exchange rates establishes a direct relationship between changes in the exchange rate and the current account (or trade balance account). For example, Mussa [1982] shows that the equilibrium exchange rate depends on expectations about the exogenous factors that affect the current account in present and future periods. A central implication of the asset‐market view is that “innovations” in the current account induce unexpected changes in the exchange rate. This is because an innovation in the current account, defined as a deviation of the current account balance from its previously expected level, conveys information about changes in economic conditions relevant for determining the equilibrium exchange rate (see Mussa [1982]). For example, if a country experiences an unexpectedly strong trade balance performance, this might be perceived to imply changes in relative economic efficiency, product demand, or international competitiveness that will improve the current account in future periods leading to an appreciation of the foreign value of the domestic currency. In essence, the asset‐market view argues that information about changes in real economic conditions requiring exchange rate adjustments can be inferred from innovations in the trade balance and/or the current account. Dornbusch and Fischer [1980] also argue that while asset markets determine exchange rates, it is the current account through its effect on net asset positions, and subsequently on asset markets, which influences the path of the foreign exchange rate. Thus, it can be argued that unanticipated current account announcements should be associated with exchange rate movements immediately following such announcements. While the relationship between the current account and the exchange rate has been extensively analyzed, the empirical evidence pertaining to the association between exchange rates and the current account has produced mixed results. Hardouvelis [1988] examines the effects of macroeconomic news, including US trade balance announcements, on three interest rates and seven exchange rates over the October 1979 to August 1984 period. He reports that announcements of the trade deficit have no statistically significant effects on interest rates, with the exception of the three‐month T‐bill rates and the exchange rates. The evidence with respect to the short‐term interest rate reactions may be associated with the fact that the “Federal Reserve Bank throughout the 1977–1984 period was unable to establish full credibility among market participants about its fight against inflation” (see Hardouvelis [1988]). Deravi et al [1988] have also investigated the financial market's response to US balance of trade announcements. They find similar results to those reported in Hardouvelis [1988] for the February 1980 to February 1985 period, but they report a significant exchange rate response to trade deficit announcements over the March 1985 to July 1987 period. Irwin [1989], however, uncovered a significant breakdown in the relationship between trade balance announcements and dollar exchange rates during the month of June 1984; that is, larger trade deficits were found to be associated with the dollar's depreciations only in the post‐June 1984 period. Contrary to previous studies, Hogan et al [1991] find larger US trade balance deficits to have a significant effect on exchange rates throughout the 1980s. Because expected trade balance figures are available from the Money Market Service Inc. and since the trade balance figures according to Crystal and Wood [1980] represent 85 percent of the US current account, it apears that the trade balance serves as a good proxy for the current account. Therefore, we are able to test more directly the impact of the US trade balance announcements on the exchange rate. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between exchange rate changes and merchandise balance announcements using a sample of US trade figures spanning the period from August 1986 to April 1989. In the following, we refer to this relationship as the “current account hypothesis”. Unlike previous research, the analysis is based on unanticipated trade balance announcements in order to study the interaction between exchange rates and information contained in the trade balance announced figures as the asset‐market approach to exchange rate determination process predicts. Dornbusch [1980] used the official forecast errors of the Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (i.e. biannual six‐month forecasts for current account and exchange rates). In this study, we focus on the major component of the current account‐the trade balance‐to test the current account hypothesis. The trade balance account is by far the best proxy for the current account. Another differentiating aspect of this study from the previous research is that it relies on systematic trade balance announcements. The use of the Commerce Departments' announcements concerning the US merchandise trade balance has also been motivated by the growing financial and non‐financial press coverage of the monthly trade balance reports. Examples of how the financial press covers the monthly trade balance announcements include: 1. “A wider trade deficit jolts a fragile market, shares off 101 points, dollar falls, and interest rates surge as big gap surprises investors, central bankers”, The Wall Street Journal, April 5,1988. 2. “London stocks rise sharply on US trade news; shares close firmer in Tokyo for the second day”, The Wall Street Journal, May 18,1989. 3. “Tricks of the Trade. The huge current‐account imbalances of the 1980s are disappearing fast. Good news? Maybe. But be warned: trade flows are less and less useful as indicators of economic performance” The Economist, March 30, 1991. 4. “Trade deficit grew in April to $6.97 billion… as exports continued to drop and imports jumped. The April deficit was the biggest monthly imbalance since a $9.49 billion deficit in November 1990. The trade gap in March was $5.58 billion. Economists say sluggish economic activity abroad is making it more difficult for US companies to sell their goods.” The Wall Street Journal, June 19, 1992. The different views registered in the financial press about the importance of the current account and trade balance imbalances in influencing exchange rate changes have further motivated the present study. Contrary to the current account hypothesis, it has been argued that because of the increasing integration of world capital markets, it is easier to finance current account deficits and therefore the trade balance or current account figures might be less useful as far as the determination of exchange rates is concerned. In addition, as a result of the increasing foreign investment activity, trade deficits may no longer represent purely national concepts. For example, a significant portion of a country's exports and imports may be accounted for by foreign firms with corporate operations there. Furthermore, US firms may decide to supply an overseas market either by exporting or by locating production abroad. Locally produced sales by US firms overseas, however, do not count as exports, nor do their local purchases of inputs count as imports. But from the firm's point of view, the local sales of a US subsidiary are viewed as being similar to exports. Therefore, it is argued that US trade balance deficits measured on the basis of residency rather than nationality of ownership, which is currently the norm, may mean less than it once did. Consequently, what emerges from the above is that the correlation between exchange rates and the information contained in the trade balance figures may be weaker than predicted by the asset‐market approach. Whether the current account or trade balance figures do matter as far as the determination of exchange rates is concerned is an empirical question. This article presents a first attempt at analyzing the impact of “innovations” in the US trade balance account on the exchange rate. An event study analysis is performed for the first time using trade balance announcement data from August 1986 to April 1989. The event methodology provides an appropriate direct test for the asset‐market model which predicts that unexpected changes in the exchange rate should be related to innovations in the current account (trade balance). The article is arranged as follows. Section II describes the data and methodology used. Section III presents empirical evidence on the relationship between exchange rates and innovations in the trade balance account. The article concludes with Section IV.

In this chapter we examine the relation between managerial ownership and the announcement returns of 93 Swedish risk-reducing acquisitions, completed over the 1980–1995 period. The evidence shows that there are not distinct governance characteristics associated with bidders' risk-reducing acquisitions. Our results indicate that firms engage in diversifying acquisitions at the expense of shareholders' wealth when managers have no equity stakes on the bidder This result is consistent with the view that risk-reducing acquisitions are motivated by managers' need to diversify the risk associated with their human capital. This result suggests that risk-reducing acquisitions occur when managers' firm-specific human capital is at risk. Managers elect corporate risk-reducing activities as a means of reducing the risk of their human capital. Risk-reducing acquisitions, however, by firms where managers hold equity stakes increase firm value. This result suggests that managerial owners make risk-reducing acquisitions when they have identified potential corporate gains from risk-reduction. Simultaneous equation estimations provide additional evidence suggesting that managerial ownership affects bidder's shareholder returns, while there is no evidence of reverse causality.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether bank mergers are driven by equity overvaluation and management compensation incentives.

To test whether equity mispricing drive bank mergers, the authors employ two alternative price-to-residual income valuation (P/V) measures for bidders and targets while the authors control for their growth prospects with the price-to-book (P/B) (two years before) ratio. The intrinsic value (V) is estimated using the three-period forecast horizon residual income model of Ohlson (1995) and perpetual residual income model that does not rely on analysts’ forecasts of future earnings prospects. The latter measure allows the authors to estimate V for a much larger sample of banks. The empirical analysis is supplemented with a standard event analysis and assessment of the long-term performance of bank mergers subsequent to the announcement date.

The evidence shows that bidders are overvalued relative to their targets, especially in equity offer deals. The authors also find that highly valued bidders: are more likely to use stock than cash; are willing to pay more relative to the target market price; are more likely to acquire private than public targets; earn lower announcement-period returns; fail to create synergy gains; experience long-term underperformance; and reward their top managers of with large compensation increases subsequent to mergers.

This study provides results consistent with the view that behavioral and managerial incentives play an important role in motivating bank mergers.

This study investigates the implications of the cumulative prospect theory in the context of US bank acquisitions, with particular emphasis on its probability weighting component. Specifically, we examine whether gambling attitudes matter in US bank takeover decisions. The evidence demonstrates that offer price premiums and target announcement returns are much higher in bank takeover transactions involving targets with gambling (lottery) features (high skewness, high volatility, and low price). Overall, the results indicate that banking acquisitions are influenced by gambling attitudes.

To measure idiosyncratic skewness, we follow Harvey and Siddique (2000) and Kumar (2009) and decompose total skewness into its idiosyncratic and systematic components.

The evidence demonstrates that offer price premiums and target announcement returns are much higher in bank takeover transactions involving targets with gambling (lottery) features (high skewness, high volatility, and low price). In addition, we find that synergies and bidder announcement returns are lower in lottery‐type acquisitions. The patterns we document are stronger when bidding banks are bigger, target banks are smaller, investor sentiment is above the median, and the Chicago Fed National Activity Index is negative.

This is an original piece of work in the field of banking.