Search results1 – 10 of over 51000
This paper aims to offer a comprehensive comparison of the characteristics between banks that securitize and banks that do not and to provide evidence of the capital…
This paper aims to offer a comprehensive comparison of the characteristics between banks that securitize and banks that do not and to provide evidence of the capital arbitrage theory of securitization.
First, the fundamental financial similarities and differences between banks that securitize assets and banks that do not participate in the securitization market are tested. Second, variables that help predict whether a bank securitizes assets are analyzed. Third, the determinants of securitization extent in banks that securitize assets are investigated – for general securitization extent and for specific type of asset securitized. Using a sample of 112 banks that securitize different assets, a matched sample of banks that do not securitize based on entity type and size is created. A quarterly panel data set of these banks dating back to 2001 is used.
The results indicate that bank size is a significant determinant of whether a bank securitizes. Further, overall securitization extent is negatively related to the bank's capital ratio (in support of capital arbitrage theory), but this result is primarily driven by credit card securitization.
Utilizing a unique data set of quarterly data from bank Call Reports; the panel data set is large relative to past studies. A matched sample approach was used to test fundamental financial similarities and differences between securitizing and non‐securitizing banks. In addition to aggregated securitization, an examination was made of how different classes of assets affect the banks' risk‐based capital ratios and test the capital arbitrage theory of securitization.
There is a dramatic increase in the number of companies whose value lies largely in their intangible assets; with relatively little or no value associated with their…
There is a dramatic increase in the number of companies whose value lies largely in their intangible assets; with relatively little or no value associated with their tangible assets. Traditional methods of valuation, based on accounting principles, where the value of the firm’s assets is a portion of the value, have systematically undervalued companies such as these. This article discusses the problem of valuing intangibles companies and suggests two approaches to determining their value. It also describes two common circumstances where company value is desired and discusses how value may be determined using a non‐traditional perspective on the company along with traditional methods for valuation. The two circumstances examined are the going‐concern value and the value under merger or acquisition circumstances (recognizing that these two circumstances produce very different valuations for the corporation).
1.1 What Are Accounts For? Overview The purpose of accounts is to reveal performance in the conduct of a business or other activity concerned with use of economic resources (e.g. a club). It is thus a matter of stewardship. Although, like economics, it is necessary in accounting to use money as a measure of performance, it is concerned with the individual organisation rather than with economic phenomena as a whole.
This paper argues that intellectual capital and intangible assets are difficult resources for two different reasons. First, intellectual capital and intangibles assets are…
This paper argues that intellectual capital and intangible assets are difficult resources for two different reasons. First, intellectual capital and intangibles assets are not (yet) disentangled by the institutions of the capital markets, and therefore they are not (yet) translatable with any degree of confidence into predictions about stock price behaviour. Second, intellectual capital and intangibles are not absent from capital market intelligence; they are just typically translated into financial form, when they are presented to actors in the capital markets, even if in forms that are themselves “invisible”. The capital market may have limited understanding of intellectual capital, but it is also always seeking to understand the complexity of business and (im)possible futures. Its appreciation of intellectual capital is therefore fragile.
Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.
In recent years, accrual accounting has become increasingly popular in many governments. Yet some questions remain unresolved. Previous literature questioned whether all…
In recent years, accrual accounting has become increasingly popular in many governments. Yet some questions remain unresolved. Previous literature questioned whether all governmental assets should be capitalized. Whereas those studies mostly focussed separately on a limited number of assets, such as infrastructure, military assets or heritage assets, the purpose of this paper is to expand these views by taking a holistic approach to their treatment.
The paper is based on a literature review combined with archival data, being the IPSAS (International Public Sector Accounting Standards).
The analysis distinguishes between the business and government sectors of the economy and argues that business accounting for assets cannot be applied to the public sector without significant modification. Secondly, within the public sector, it is argued that “businesslike assets” (such as normal buildings and equipment) should be distinguished from “specific governmental assets” (such as art galleries), where the latter should be reported off balance sheet as community assets held in trust by governments for community enjoyment.
The current paper presents a solution for recognizing capital assets in different situations.
The paper reveals some basic differences in points of view between the governmental dimension versus a businesslike dimension in considering capital assets.
U.S. state governments own a large array of fixed assets and lease a great number of parcels of private real properties for public uses. The purpose of this paper is to…
U.S. state governments own a large array of fixed assets and lease a great number of parcels of private real properties for public uses. The purpose of this paper is to explore the public asset management system of the U.S. state governments. First, this paper analyzes the major, current public asset management systems and the public procurement systems created by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Based on the analysis, this paper constructs a comprehensive public asset management system that consists of six cornerstones. Second, this paper verifies the comprehensive public asset management system using the data collected from thirty-seven surveyed state governments. The data analysis demonstrates that the comprehensive public asset management system is supported. However, each cornerstone of the comprehensive public asset management system presents different strengths. Third, this paper suggests that further research may delve into particular areas of capital asset management at the state government level to identify critical issues and to provide appropriate resolutions.