Search results

This study examines the importance of income income-shifting arrangements of US multinational corporations (MNCs) on future stock price crash risk.

This study employs a sample of 7,641 corporation-year observations over the 2005–2017 period and uses ordinary least squares regression analysis.

The authors find that the income-shifting arrangements of MNCs are positively and significantly associated with stock price crash risk after controlling for corporate tax avoidance and other known determinants of stock price crash risk in the regression model. This result is robust to alternative measures of stock price crash risk and income-shifting, and several endogeneity tests. The authors also observe that income-shifting arrangements increase stock price crash risk both directly and indirectly through the information opacity channel. Finally, in cross-sectional analyses, the authors find that the positive association between income-shifting and stock price crash risk is more pronounced for MNCs that use tax haven subsidiaries and have weak corporate governance mechanisms.

The authors provide new empirical evidence that MNCs will likely face significant capital market consequences regarding their income-shifting arrangements.

The goal of this chapter is to reexamine the nature and structure of the military–industrial complex (MIC) through the works of John Kenneth Galbraith. MIC, or military power as he prefers, is a coalition of vested interests within the state and industry that promoted the military power in the name of “national security” for their interests. Galbraith’s theory of giant corporations helps us understand the role of military corporations in the MIC. Moreover, he is a critical scholar in examining this topic because he was a political insider in the Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations and a prominent public intellectual against the Vietnam War. Against this background, this chapter has three parts. After explaining the development of military Keynesianism with respect to the main economic thoughts, it examines the history of the MIC and its impact on economic priorities during and after the Cold War through Galbraith’s works. Finally, this chapter discusses MIC’s relevancy today and evaluates Galbraith’s prophecies.

Over the past two decades, the topics of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have attracted an increasing amount of interest, reflecting a growing sensitivity of investors and corporations towards environmental, social and governance issues.

This survey offers an overview of the academic literature on ESG/CSR through the lens of investors, institutions and firms. We first discuss the definitions of ESG and CSR and their relationship to each other.

We next describe how ESG is measured and note problems with the measurement of and quality of ESG data and discrepancies between different measures of ESG. We then turn our attention to investors, examining what types of investors invest in ESG and the role of institutional investors in ESG. From the firm's perspective, we discuss why firms themselves conduct ESG. We also summarize the literature on the impact of ESG on firms: how ESG affects firms' financing, disclosure and reporting activities and firm performance. Finally, we describe other consequences of the focus of ESG and CSR on firms and investors.

This survey offers an overview of the academic literature on ESG/CSR through the lens of investors, institutions and firms.

This paper investigates the significant increase in S corporation banks converting to C corporations following the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the shift in motivations behind these conversions.

The paper uses bank-level panel data from Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Call Reports to analyze the determinants of S bank conversions after the TCJA, comparing post-TCJA conversion trends with pre-TCJA trends utilizing an ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistics model.

The study finds that post-TCJA conversions are primarily driven by financially stable banks seeking improved tax conditions and relaxed shareholder restrictions as C corporations. This contrasts with pre-TCJA conversions, which were predominantly driven by financially distressed S corporation banks seeking new equity capital to maintain solvency.

The findings necessitate a comprehensive reconsideration of the Subchapter S status' sustained relevance for smaller institutions, especially in light of the comparative benefits now offered by the C corporation status post-TCJA. The results underscore the importance of ongoing academic investigation to deepen the understanding of the evolving fiscal landscape's effects on community banks, thereby contributing to the knowledge of the resilience and health of the US economy.

This research nudges policymakers and regulators to contemplate the ongoing relevance and advantages of the S corporation status. Given the substantial benefits conferred by the C corporation status in the post-TCJA environment, this study suggests that retaining the S corporation status may not offer the same appeal for smaller community banks as it once did.

This paper contributes to the broader understanding of the impact of tax policy on businesses' organizational choices, particularly in the banking industry and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of the S corporation status to assess its ongoing applicability in fostering small and community-focused financial institutions in light of the evolved corporate tax landscape.

We examine the stock market reaction to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 during its enactment process, focusing on its international provisions. Consistent with extant evidence, we find lower returns for high-foreign-activity firms, indicating a negative market reaction to the international provisions overall. Considering specific international provisions, we find that the market reaction was more positive (negative) for firms likely most affected by the shift to a quasi-territorial system for taxing foreign earnings (the transition tax on existing unrepatriated earnings, the tax on global intangible low-taxed income, and/or the base erosion and antiabuse tax) than for other firms. Our findings imply that investors are able to disentangle the economic implications of complex and interactive tax law changes.

Past research has generally purported and tested for a positive linear relationship between psychological capital and organizational outcomes such as firm performance. Yet, recent conceptual work has started to recognize that for certain outcomes, too much psychological capital can be as detrimental as too little. In this study, the author hypothesizes that during a major crisis, organizational psychological capital (OPsyCap) may in fact exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship with performance.

T leverages the revelatory power of a recent major crisis (the COVID-19 pandemic) to gather a pre-crisis and post-crisis matching sample of 952 earnings conference calls held by 476 S&P 500 firms with corresponding market performance data and use computer-assisted text analysis (CATA) methodology to assess OPsyCap from call transcripts.

T finds that OPsyCap has a statistically significant inverted U-shaped relationship with market performance after the crisis, but not prior—thereby suggesting that moderate OPsyCap is more beneficial to market performance than either insufficient or excessive OPsyCap in times of crisis.

Top managers should not display overly excessive psychological capital after a major crisis, as shareholders may interpret such cues as unwarranted optimism, overconfidence and an inability to accept the new reality brought about by the crisis.

This study's findings contribute to extant literature by being the first to empirically highlight a curvilinear relationship between psychological capital and an important outcome variable—market performance. Furthermore, this study's lack of results prior to a major crisis, but not after, may suggest a new boundary condition.

Outstanding unexercised stock options can motivate managers to engage in actions that increase the value of their company’s stock, including buying back their firm’s stock. The objective of granting stock options to managers is to align their interests with stockholders by tying a portion of their compensation to the company’s stock performance. However, unexercised stock options may have unintended consequences by providing managers with a vested interest in artificially boosting stock prices via stock buybacks. The primary objective of this research is to study the main factors that influence firms' buyback decisions amongst hospitality firms at a time when these firms were clamoring for taxpayer bailouts. Results from logistic regression seem to suggest that outstanding executive stock options are a major contributory factor in a firm’s buyback decision. Estimates also indicate that larger, more profitable firms will likely engage in stock buybacks. These findings survive a battery of tests.

The authors use logistic regression to predict the probability of a firm’s buyback decision based on a given set of exogenous explanatory variables.

The paper supports the hypothesis that buyback decisions are guided by the motive to prop support stock prices in the presence of outstanding restricted stock options/warrants granted to firms' executives.

The paper focuses on the buyback decision of U.S. hospitality firms. The results, therefore, might not be generalizable to firms in other industries or countries.

U.S. share repurchase corporate policy and government regulation needs to be revisited given the economic imperative for firms to invest in activities to restore employment and put them in a position for economic recovery.

Public criticism of the size, structure and form (i.e. loan vs grant) of COVID-19 bailouts warrants an examination of whether the factors that drive hospitality and tourism firms to repurchase shares support economic recovery.

Consistent with agency theory, the authors find a significant positive association between outstanding restricted stocks and a firm’s decision to support the stock prices by buying back shares.