Search results

Misconduct allegations have been found to not only affect the alleged firm but also other, unalleged firms in form of reputational and financial spillover effects. It has remained unexplored, however, how the number of prior allegations against other firms matters for an individual firm currently facing an allegation. Building on behavioral decision theory, we argue that the relationship between allegation prevalence among other firms and investor reaction to a focal allegation is inverted U-shaped. The inverted U-shaped effect is theorized to emerge from the combination of two effects: In the absence of prior allegations against other firms, investors fail to anticipate the focal allegation, and hence react particularly negatively (“anticipation effect”). In the case of many prior allegations against other firms, investors also react particularly negatively because investors perceive the focal allegation as more warranted (“evaluation effect”). The multi-industry, empirical analysis of 8,802 misconduct allegations against US firms between 2007 and 2017 provides support for our predicted, inverted U-shaped effect. Our study complements recent misconduct research on spillover effects by highlighting that not only a current allegation against an individual firm can “contaminate” other, unalleged firms but that also prior allegations against other firms can “contaminate” investor reaction to a focal allegation against an individual firm.

In this study we investigated the effects of news reports on acquirer short-term performance. Our focus was on the extent to which key deal characteristics – the type of deal, during a merger wave or not or the presence of a significant premium – are made explicit. Moreover, we looked for the effect of the assessment of the deal characteristics by different key informants: board members, top management team members, and analysts. Configurations derived using the set-theoretic approach suggest that media-transmitted signals form complex interrelations among content and informant. We found that investors react positively to deals that are surrounded by unequivocal signals of synergy potential: they contain explicitly stated deal characteristics as well as deal endorsements from the boards and/or top management of acquirer and target companies. Analysts’ assessments of the deals seem to bear little influence on investor reaction. Meanwhile, investors react negatively to deals with low or absent media coverage as well as deals surrounded by signals of ambiguous synergy potential.

This paper investigates the relationship between a firm's susceptibility to a hostile takeover and investors' reactions to a seasoned equity offering (SEO).

The study applies ordinary least squares (OLS) with fixed effects regression analyses to a sample of 2,517 observations from US listed companies. Event study methodology was employed to capture market reactions to the announcement of newly issued stocks. To achieve cross-sectional analyses, time variations in takeover laws allowed us to perform the desired tests across two decades of data.

The results suggest that investors react positively to the announcement of an equity offering when the threat of hostile takeover is higher. The magnitude of positive stock market reactions varies over two decades due to time series variations in takeover laws. Furthermore, the findings show that a higher hostile takeover index (HTI) score reduces investors' concerns about the inefficient usage of proceeds in acquisitions.

The results demonstrate that the corporate takeover legal environment provides an important external governance mechanism through which investors' confidence increases during an SEO event. The study's empirical evidence implies that the extent of external disciplinary mechanism plays a significant role in reducing investors' uncertainty about the misuse of raised capital.

The exogenous fast-evolving legal environment surrounding the takeover market in the United Status allowed our study to bypass the endogeneity concerns in measuring governance strength. From the review of prior literature, this paper appears to be the first to use HTI scores to examine investors' reactions to a corporate announcement.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether investors perceive the issuance of sukuk differently than they do in case of conventional bonds, by using event study with superior data. Then, it analyzes whether financial characteristics of issuers can explain the abnormal return and likelihood of sukuk issuance. Finally, the paper proposes a testable model explaining the investor reaction.

This paper uses market model event study to assess investor reaction to the issuance of sukuk. Then, linear and logistic regressions are used to test whether financial characteristics of issuers can explain the abnormal return and likelihood of sukuk issuance. To investigate the differences between sukuk issuers and bond issuers, this paper tests the difference in means of issuer characteristics. Finally, the sample is subdivided into good and bad firm prospects according to dividend/earnings ratio and book-to-market ratio. The subdivisions are used to test the proposed model explaining the investor reaction.

The study finds that a large variety of firms issues sukuk. The event study reports significant negative abnormal returns around the announcement date of sukuk issuance. The study also reveals that the earning prospect of issuer firms affect the investor reaction. Firms with lower earning prospect receive a negative reaction from the investors. Also, smaller, or financially unhealthy firms are more likely to issue sukuk. Smaller and riskier firms issue sukuk, because participation in the market is less constrained. In other words, the risk-sharing nature of sukuk might imply that the firm is not confident about the future prospect. However, if the firm has good earnings prospects, investors react to the issuance of sukuk negatively.

Reliability and availability of data is a hurdle to test the investor reaction model. As more data become available, the models implications can be further tested.

This paper uses the most complete set of data to study sukuk, making it the most selection bias-free and complete study. Moreover, the proposed investor reaction model will enrich the theory.

This study examines whether investors value the timing and/or information of mandatory disclosures in a unique research setting of listed companies in Thailand.

The authors adopt an event-study based approach. Abnormal stock returns are calculated using an OLS market model to measure market reactions to three types of mandatory reports issued by listed Thai firms: financial statements, Form 56-1 and Form 56-2. These reports are released sequentially but contain overlapping information content. Multivariate regression models are employed to examine the market reactions to these regulatory reports and explore the characteristics of firms that affect the market response.

The stock market reacts differentially to these reports. The financial statements, which are filed the earliest and are the most concise, prompt the strongest reaction. Investors similarly react significantly to Form 56-1 and Form 56-2, although Form 56-2 provides additional information beyond Form 56-1. The market reactions to small firms are stronger. Collectively, equity investors focus on the timeliness of disclosures rather than the information disclosed in the mandatory reports.

The evidence provides support for ongoing regulatory initiatives aimed at improving the timeliness of mandatory disclosures in emerging economies.

Prior studies on disclosure regulation investigate either the effect of information content or the timing of mandatory disclosures in isolation. The authors differentiate the effect of information content from disclosure timing and extend the literature by suggesting that investors incrementally value timeliness of disclosures. Investors perceive the benefit of the timely release of quantitative information compared to subsequent narrative disclosures. Between Form 56-1 and Form 56-2, the earlier release of the narrative non-financial information is incrementally traded into share prices.

Signalling theory suggests how “strong” or “weak” the signal quality detected by a receiver (defined as signalling strength) is distorted by noisy factors (defined as noise). Although corporate cooperation signals are known to lead to receiver reaction, the effects of distortion factors on signal credibility are generally unexplored in signalling process. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

After analysing 264 contract announcements in 2013–2015 that befall publicly listed firms in China, the authors explore the signalling impact of contract value. the authors also incorporate the signalling noises, namely, signalling environment, external referents and other signallers, into the contracting context and investigate their effects on distorting the relationship between signal strength and receiver reaction.

Results indicate that firms’ contract-signing announcement conveys an effective signal to investors: the larger the contract scale is, the more investor reaction the firms experience. The signalling effects of contract scale on investor reaction are moderated by the three distorting factors.

The findings contribute to the signalling theory literature on the effects of signalling noise on receivers’ perception of signal observability.

This paper synthesizes existing experimental research in the area of investor perceptions and offers directions for future research. Investor-related experimental research has grown substantially, especially in the last decade, as it has made valuable contributions in establishing causal links, examining underlying process measures, and examining areas with little available data. Within this review, I examine 121 papers and identify three broad categories that affect investor perceptions: information format, investor features, and disclosure credibility. Information format describes how investors are influenced by information salience, information labeling, reporting and accounting complexity, financial statement recognition, explanatory disclosures, and proposed disclosure changes. Investor features describes investors’ use of heuristics, investor preferences, and the effect of investor experience. Disclosure credibility is influenced by external and internal assurance, management credibility, disclosure characteristics, and management incentives. Using this framework, I summarize the existing research and identify areas that would benefit from additional research.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative approach to measure the cost-benefit tradeoff, by analyzing stockholders’ reactions to the announcement and vote on the proposed rule. More specifically, the authors use event study methodology to investigate the stock price reaction on two key dates; that is, the announcement date and the voting date of the proposed short-term borrowing disclosure regulation, and argue that positive abnormal stock returns indicate that the expected benefits of the regulation outweigh the compliance costs. A negative reaction would indicate that, in the eyes of investors, the costs of compliance exceed the expected benefits.

The authors use event study analysis and apply the market model to equal-weighted portfolios of 2,450 financial and 3,985 non-financial US firms to calculate mean cumulative abnormal stock returns (MCARs, hereafter) on the announcement and voting dates. Then, the authors conduct mean difference tests on firm-level MCARs across three event windows, that is, (−30,−1), (0,+1) and (+2,+30), to confirm if the MCARs of financial firms are different from those of non-financial firms on both the announcement and the voting dates. Finally, robustness tests are performed with alternate benchmark, using value-weighted portfolios, for the market.

The authors find that the market reaction is positive and significant at the announcement date and negative and significant at the voting date of the proposed regulation of short-term borrowing disclosure regulation. Overall, the paper documents a positive market reaction, indicating the usefulness of the disclosure from the vantage point of users. Examining and comparing the results for various subsets, including commercial banks and saving institutions, bank holding companies, size quartiles, and exchange listed and OTC registrants, the authors find that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to regulation is undesirable.

This is first empirical study, to best of the authors’ knowledge, to explore stockholder reaction to a proposed, rather than an enforced, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation and may contribute to the SEC’s final decision on the rule. Second, given a dissimilar reaction from investors of different firms, the results suggest that the SEC needs to reconsider its one-size-fit-all approach for the proposed rule. Finally, because the proposed disclosure would affect all SEC registrants, the economic implications of the findings are important not only for stockholders, but also for regulators, as they attempt to manage systematic risk and optimize the level of market intervention.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the market reaction to the appointments of chief executive officers (CEOs) in companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. The authors focussed on the relationship between the characteristics of a newly appointed CEO and the shareholders’ reactions to the appointment of a CEO.

To measure shareholder reaction, the authors apply an event study methodology. The determinants of reaction are identified on the basis of multi-regression analysis.

The results reveal a negative market reaction to all CEO appointments, both new appointments and reappointments. Investor reaction is driven more by the financial condition of the company, the company’s market performance and the free float, than by the characteristics of a newly appointed CEO. Neither the origins and generation (age) nor the gender of a CEO influence share prices. The relationship between the educational background of a CEO and shareholders’ reactions is mixed. Furthermore, the appointment of an inexperienced CEO seems to be preferred by investors.

The study is restricted by certain limitations related to the adopted measures, the single-market research, data gaps and the selection of variables for regression analysis. A further cross-country study including Central and Eastern Europe and/or the transition economies of the Baltic Region is recommended. The relationship between the operating performance of a firm and its internal control mechanisms could be explored.

The findings might influence the decisions made by company owners and supervisory boards when appointing top executives, and might contribute to a better understanding of how CEO appointments can affect shareholder value creation. The results also provide important guidelines for institutions that oversee the financial system.

The findings of this study are expected to the findings are expected to contribute to the literature on the empirical analysis of the shareholder wealth effect, on signalling theory, on the phenomenon of information asymmetry and on corporate governance. The study covers a full economic cycle of the capital market, including the financial crisis and financial bubbles, and it fills a gap in the research regarding emerging markets and transition economies in Europe.

This study uses the unique setting of unusual market activity (UMA) replies to examine the market reaction and the effects of disclosure and investor protection amid information uncertainty.

A total of 1527 hand-collected UMA replies from the interlinked stock exchanges of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore for the period of 2015–2017 were analysed using event study and Heckman two-step methods with market and matched control firm benchmarks.

The overall results support the uncertain information hypothesis. The UMA replies with new information were also found to reduce information uncertainty, but not information asymmetry, and they are complementary to investor protection in enhancing abnormal returns. The overall finding suggests that the UMA public query system can be an effective market intervention mechanism in improving information certainty and efficiency.

This study provides insight on the effects of news replies and investor protection on abnormal returns, and support for the uncertain information hypothesis. The finding is useful to policymakers and stock exchanges as they seek to understand how to alleviate investors' anxiety and to create an informationally efficient market. Nevertheless, this study is limited by the extensiveness of the hand-collected UMA replies and also the potential issue of simultaneity-induced endogeneity.

This study uses UMA replies and cross-country data taking into account the effects of market surroundings such as information uncertainty and the level of investor protection on market reaction.