Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors influencing the underwriting discount for US Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Seasoned Equity Offerings (SEOs).

The study provides new evidence on determinants of underwriting discounts with a comprehensive dataset of 783 US REIT SEOs from 1996 until June 2010. Ordinary least squares regressions are performed to estimate the effect of the level of representative underwriting along with other potential factors on underwriting discounts.

The study complements the well‐documented notion of the economies of scale in SEO underwriting discounts. The equally (value) weighted underwriting discounts averaged 4.21 per cent (4.10 per cent) with a declining trend over time. The findings of this study show the statistically and economically significant negative effect of the level of representative underwriting on the underwriting discounts, as well as the significance of the structure of underwriting syndicate in determining the underwriting discounts. The findings suggest that issuers can minimize the costs of raising secondary equity capital by optimally allocating the underwriting business among the underwriters.

This paper adds to the international REIT SEO literature by exploring new evidence behind underwriting discounts. The study includes data before and after the REIT Modernization Act 1999 and during the recent global financial crisis period.

This research explores to answer the question: What accounts for the substantial underwriting losses in the Ghanaian insurance industry?

Thirty-four (34) insurers' audited financial reports covering the period of 2007 to 2017 were analysed through dynamic panel regression to uncover the underlying causes of high underwriting losses in the Ghanaian insurance industry.

The findings indicate that efforts at increasing market share by overtrading add no value to insurers underwriting profitability. The underwriting risk suggests that the industry charges disproportionately too small premiums for the risks it underwrites. This may indicate under-pricing by some insurers to grow their customer base.

The findings have implications for managerial efficiency and risk management structures that align compensation with underwriting efficiency.

The association between managerial preference and the underwriting performance of insurers in emerging markets has rarely been researched. This study responds to this knowledge challenge.

Many insurance companies vigorously pursue top‐line growth, even though it has the potential to develop unprofitably over time. The time lag (or tail) between when insurance is sold and when claims are paid generates risks unique to insurance companies. Furthermore, the insurance market is both mature and efficient (i.e. its level of competitive risk is very high), which means that profitable opportunities are both rare and untenable unless protected by competitive advantage. There is currently no practical measure available (of which the authors are aware) at the business unit level to evaluate insurance premium growth in the face of the industry's risks, impairing executives' ability to assess segment opportunities (and hazards), thus hampering strategic decision making. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a practical measure developed by the authors called Underwriting Return (UWR) which aims at helping to alleviate this situation.

The paper introduces UWR which was developed during the course and scope of the authors' work in the insurance industry, and their research into applying value‐based management to that industry.

The paper finds that UWR is a practical measure that property and casualty executives can use at the business unit level to help quantify market segments to grow, hold, harvest and abandon.

A variety of strategic analysis tools, such as the popular Boston Consulting Group matrix, are utilized today. In general, the application of such tools is hampered by an imprecision of measurement but each can add a level of insight to executives' resource allocation options. UWR can further aid insurance executives in strategic analysis by helping to quantify in which segments to compete, and which ones to abandon. The paper demonstrates the utility of the measure in an example based on an actual analysis.

This is the first REIT paper to seek to empirically examine potential influencing factors on the discounts and underwriting fees of Australian REIT rights issues.

Using a methodology similar to Owen and Suchard, and Armitage, a sample of 62 A‐REIT rights issues during 2001‐2009 is analyzed. A variety of potential factors influencing discounts and underwriting fees are explored.

Over A$20 billion was raised by A‐REIT rights issues during 2001‐2009 (this around three times that raised through A‐REIT initial public offerings during the same period). The mean offer price was discounted around 9.5 percent from the current market price and underwriting fees averaged 2.9 percent of gross proceeds raised – both substantially less than for industrial rights issues. The standard deviation of daily returns for the past year appears to influence the percentage discount offered to subscribers. This volatility was particularly noticeable in 2008 and 2009, during the global financial crisis, where new issues were discounted substantially so as to raise equity to repay debt. This historical risk variable appears paramount in determining the discounts to subscribers and fees to underwriters.

A‐REITs seeking to minimize the discounts offered to subscribers and to minimize their underwriting costs with rights issue equity capital raisings must first minimize their share price volatility.

This paper adds to the international costs of capital raising literature of REITs by examining such costs with A‐REIT rights issues and is the first paper to examine factors influencing these costs.

Chen and Ritter (2000) documented that underwriter spreads for recent US initial public offerings (IPOs) in $20 million range as well as much larger IPOs in the $80 million range are clustered at 7%. This observation has led to a Department of Justice (DOJ) enquiry into potential price fixing by underwriters. We demonstrate through a times series analysis that IPOs have tripled in size and become much riskier over time. A pooled data analysis can therefore mask evidence of competition in the market. We find that spread clustering is not a recent phenomenon. Over time, clustering at 7% has increased as clustering above 7% has declined. IPO spreads have declined significantly over time as the firms going public more recently are riskier, underwriting efforts have increased and recent IPOs are much larger than IPOs in the past. Controlling for time trends, larger IPOs have lower average spreads. The market for underwriting IPOs seems to be competitive with entry of new firms during the hot markets.

This study examines the direct (out‐of‐pocket) flotation costs of new capital issues by bank holding companies between 1980 and 1986 and the total costs including any market effects of security issuance. A regression model is developed that relates the direct selling costs to the type of security being issued, the exchange on which the parent bank holding company is traded, information specific to the issue, and information specific to the firm. The model is highly significant, explaining over 80 percent of the variation in issuing costs. These direct costs, however, are small for equity issues when compared to information effects (stock price responses). When these costs are included, the costs to bank holding companies of issuing equity increase substantially and the direct costs of issuing preferred and debt are, generally, more than offset by positive stock price effects.

The purpose of this paper is to relate the fees paid to IPO underwriters to the nature and quality of the services they provide.

Controlling for the characteristics of the firm going public, the risk associated with the offering, and the reputation of the underwriter, the authors study on a sample of Italian IPOs whether a formal commitment by underwriters to provide ancillary services allows them to charge higher fees.

The authors document that asking underwriters to stabilize stock price is costly to the issuer, while to support liquidity is not. The authors’ also show that underwriters stabilize IPOs that really need it, whereas the provision of liquidity support does not seem to be always aligned with the issuer’s interest.

Investigating the Italian underwriting market is instructive for two main reasons. First, the institutional setting in IPOs is similar to most continental European countries, but significantly different from the US market. For instance, allocation policies in US IPOs are discretionary for both retail and institutional investors, while in Europe shares cannot be discretionarily allocated to retail investors. Second, the Italian market offers the opportunity to study the going-public decision outside the typical Anglo-Saxon financial systems. This is of interest because while both the UK and the USA have well-developed equity markets and a related industry of financial intermediation centered on providing equity, our analysis sheds light on financial intermediation of IPOs in a bank-centered system.

Many tools are in use for representing and analyzing business processes, but little information is available on how these tools are used in practice by process design teams. This paper analyzes one process mapping workshop in detail. Over three days, two facilitators and five representatives of the organization and business functions redesigned the core auto insurance business at a mid‐size Swiss insurance company. The mapping tool used during the session was IDEF0. The purpose of this paper is to share our experiences in using IDEF0 in the workshop setting. In addition to a narrative description of the workshop, we offer our observations on how such workshops can be conducted effectively and on the strengths and weaknesses of IDEF0 in this context. The final business process map did not emerge from a logical, linear development process. Rather, the workshop was characterized by constant refinement and development of an existing structure, punctuated by an occasional radical idea that forced the group to throw out the current process and start over. The hierarchical approach of IDEF0 proved critical in keeping the group focused on its task of abstracting the essence of the process itself from the details of current practice. The mapping tool proved to be less convenient for representing a sequence of events in time, multiple cases, and conditional flows of work.

Property and casualty (“P&C”) insurance companies rely on “risk capital” to absorb large losses that unexpectedly deplete claims‐paying resources and reduce underwriting capacity. The purpose of this paper is to review the similarities and differences between two different types of risk capital raised by insurers to cover losses arising from natural catastrophes: internal risk capital provided by investors in insurance company debt and equity; and external risk capital provided by third parties. The paper also explores the distinctions between four types of external catastrophe risk capital: reinsurance, industry loss warranties, catastrophe derivatives, and insurance‐linked securities. Finally, how the credit crisis has impacted alternative sources of catastrophe risk capital in different ways is considered.

The discussion is based on the conceptual framework for analyzing risk capital developed by Merton and Perold.

In 2008, the P&C insurance industry was adversely affected by significant natural catastrophe‐related losses, floundering investments, and limited access to capital markets, all of which put upward pressure on catastrophe reinsurance premiums. But the influx of new risk capital that generally accompanies hardening markets has been slower than usual to occur in the wake of the credit crisis. Meanwhile, disparities between the relative costs and benefits of alternative sources of catastrophe risk capital are even more pronounced than usual.

Although many insurance companies focus on how much reinsurance to buy, this paper emphasizes that a more important question is how much risk capital to acquire from external parties (and in what form) vis‐à‐vis investors in the insurance company's own securities.

The purposes of this paper are threefold. First, it aims to argue normatively how Shari’ah precepts governing Takaful operations are translated into (rightfully) different accounting and reporting of Takaful operators. Second, it provides a critical review of the available and applicable accounting and reporting standards and guidelines related to Takaful in the Malaysian context. The third objective which constitutes the empirical piece of this paper centred on the basic numerical evidence obtained from the survey of final-year accounting students with regards to their ability in identifying the basic (dis)similarities in accounting and reporting between Takaful and insurance based on the published financial statements.

A mixed-mode research approach was adopted covering archival document reviews and focused group survey.

Findings are arguably informative and relevant to diverse stakeholders. First, the missing jigsaw puzzle representing accounting and reporting in the Takaful literature is uncovered by extending the explanations of Takaful-insurance conceptual and operational differences to that of accounting and reporting. The essence primarily lies on the different operational set-up attributed to the elements of gharar, maisir and riba. Second, the comparative analysis of accounting and reporting rules indicates that AAOIFI standards are less detailed in terms of accounting treatment over certain areas of Takaful operations (e.g. Re-Takaful), but these are more holistic, focused and specific in some other relatively important reporting areas reflecting the unique nature of Takaful operations. Third, findings based on the Malaysian Takaful accounting and reporting guideline suggest that accounting and reporting between Takaful and insurance are perceived to be a coin having monographic characteristics on both sides.

The research explicitly extends and highlights the impact of Shari’ah precepts governing Takaful’s operational nature on its accounting and reporting. It also provides empirical evidence on the nature of Malaysian-based Takaful accounting and reporting guidelines which mirror its insurance counterpart.