Search results

This paper makes attempt to test the firm‐level long‐term asset growth (LAG) effects in returns by examining the cross‐sectional relation between firm‐level LAG and subsequent abnormal stock returns. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether limits‐to‐arbitrage can explain this asset growth anomaly in Chinese stock market.

Empirical research was carried out.

The empirical results show that asset growth anomaly in A‐share stock market is significant and robust. The conclusion provides more evidence for the existence of asset growth anomaly. Additionally, arbitrage risk indicated by idiosyncratic risk cannot explain the anomaly, arbitrage risk indicated by accounting information transparency can partly explain the anomaly, and arbitrage cost proxied by Amihud's measure of illiquidity indicator can completely explain the asset growth anomaly in A‐share stock market.

The results of this paper imply that strengthening the disclosure of firm information and improving the liquidity of the market are important to improve the efficiency of the A‐share stock market.

The paper selects the sample of non‐financial listed companies in A‐share stock market to research the asset growth anomaly and investigates whether limits‐to‐arbitrage can explain this anomaly. This paper proves the existence of asset growth anomaly in A‐share stock market and is a good reference for further researches.

The relationship between man and nature varies with different stages of the development of human society. The destructive consequences brought about in the early stage of industrialization sparked serious concerns about ecological and environmental issues.

The worldwide controversy aroused by The Limits to Growth published in 1972 made people realize that the carrying capacity of the ecosystem was limited, as were the resources. In the long run, scientific and technological progress can constantly discover new energy and resources.

However, in every specific stage of human society, the energy and resources crises are always a severe challenge that human beings should face. It is the core contents of sustainable development to change the old economic growth model and explore a new economic growth model.

The relationship between man and nature is one of the most fundamental relationships in human society and economic development. How to deal with it is also one of the most fundamental issues in human society and economic development. From the perspective of the historical process of human society, the relationship has roughly gone through the following stages.

Growth is the top priority on the CEO agenda, but the question they confront is “What factors constrain growth?” And, “How do successful companies drive growth?”

IBM Institute for Business Value conducted a global study that focused on three questions: Who are the successful growers and what patterns are associated with them? What do successful growers do differently? How can other companies apply what they do?

The major finding were: that limits to growth are often self‐imposed and, as such, can be overcome; firms with the will to be successful growers can break free of perceived constraints related to size, industry boundaries and geographic neighborhood; and despite the widely held belief that mergers and acquisitions inherently destroy value for the acquirer, companies that learn to become successful growers use M&A strategies effectively.

Looking at 1,238 Global S&P 1200 companies, the IBM team analyzed the patterns of revenue growth and shareholder value creation over the decade, segmenting results by four component geographies and 18 industry groups. It selected three industries (consumer products, telecom services and electronics) for detailed assessment, developing cases studies for about 20 companies in each industry, picked to represent a range of successful and unsuccessful results.

Winning the growth game requires companies to excel in three vital areas: course, capability and conviction. Successful growers set the right growth direction – the course – by forming a clear point of view on the future, evolving the product‐market portfolio without being limited by history, building a competitive model to win and pursuing reinforcing initiatives to sustain growth. They truly understand their capabilities – based on realistic assessments of their strengths and limitations – and evolve their operational model to support the growth strategy. Finally, while many companies develop excellent plans, truly successful growers build organization‐wide conviction that translates intent into action for everyone from top leaders to front line managers.

The message is clear: neighborhood is not destiny. Executives have more room to be ambitious than they tend to believe. Winning companies set ambitious growth plans regardless of industry or geographic “limits.” They aim for targets above and beyond what they and their peers typically expect.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Hyperconnectivity and supercooperation among partners within the mobile value chain are crucial factors for sustainable growth of the mobile ecosystem. This study aims to identify the complex structure of hyperconnectivity and supercooperation underlying revenue sharing practices and the actions and reactions of Chinese mobile video triads.

This study uses the causal loop diagram and system dynamics simulation to demonstrate the feedback causal structure wherein the revenue sharing (RS) rule adjustments trigger interactions among participants (e.g., MNOs, SPs and CPs) in mobile video service triads, leading to fluctuations in the number of mobile video users and total revenue in the mobile video value chain.

Change of RS rules among value chain participants is an incentive for achieving the sustainability of the mobile ecosystem, as examined using a system dynamics (SD) simulation. However, from the perspective of a tri-partite mobile value chain, the “accidental adversary” system archetype caused by adjustment of RS rules has an unintended negative impact on counterparts in the mobile ecosystem value chain.

This study analyzes a complex feedback causal structure based on structural interdependencies among growth, limiting and relaxing loops in the Chinese mobile video ecosystem. The result of SD simulation suggests strategic alternatives such as the “growth and underinvestment” systems archetype to overcome “limits to growth”. Moreover, this study explores the accidental adversary archetype in complex and complicated mobile service triads as an impediment to achieving sustainability of the mobile ecosystem.

The value‐premium is the empirical observation that “value” stocks (low market/book) have higher returns than “growth” stocks (high market/book). The purpose of this paper is to propose a new explanation for the value‐premium that the authors call the limits to growth hypothesis.

To guide the testing, a dynamic equity valuation model was used that has the property that profitability increases risk for value firms in anticipation of future growth‐leverage, whereas, profitability “covers” the capital expenditure costs of growth, which decreases risk for growth firms. Because the authors interpret dividends as a corporate response to growth‐limits, they test for this predicted differential relation between profitability and risk for value versus growth stocks with the returns of profitable dividend‐paying firms.

It is found that profitability increases returns to a greater extent for dividend‐paying value firms compared to dividend‐paying growth firms, which is consistent with a differential relation between profitability and risk. At the same time, it is also found that growth firms have lower returns than value firms.

The authors use the limits‐to‐growth hypothesis to explain why profitability can either increase or decrease risk. High‐profitability dividend‐paying growth firms have lower returns than low‐profitability dividend‐paying value firms. This value‐premium is consistent with the argument that high profitability “covers” the capital expenditure costs of growth, which decreases risk and, thus, returns. At the same time, profitability increases returns to a greater extent for value stocks compared to growth stocks, which is consistent with the hypothesis that profitability increases risk for value firms in anticipation of future growth‐leverage.

Begins with a summary of the limits to growth analysis of the global situation, identifying over‐production and over‐consumption as the basic causes of ecological damage, resource depletion, Third World deprivation and social breakdown. Gives attention to the destructive effects of market relations on community and the social bond. States that if this analysis is valid some inescapable implications follow for the form that a sustainable society must take. Finally, outlines a general strategy for the building of sustainable communities and makes reference to the global ecovillage movement beginning to undertake this task.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.

“A mad hatter's tea party” is the way one reporter describe the October 1975 Limits to Growth Conference. In his view something thoroughly silly was going on at that meeting in Houston. But, as in Alice in Wonderland, whatever nonsense there may have been on the surface, profound matters were the true subject of the conference. Some day that reporter may wake up and wonder how he failed to see the significance of the debate over growth. By that time we could be firmly in the clutches of no‐growth policies.