Search results

This paper aims to investigate how organization capital influences different forms of corporate risk. It also explores how the relationship between organization capital and risks varies in the cross-section of firms.

To test the hypothesis, this study employs the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model using a large sample of the United States (US) data over the 1981–2019 period. It also uses an instrumental variable approach and an errors-in-variables panel regression approach to mitigate endogeneity problems.

The empirical results show that organization capital is positively related to both idiosyncratic risk and total risk but negatively related to systematic risk. The cross-sectional analysis shows that the positive relationship between organization capital and idiosyncratic risk is significantly more pronounced for the subsample of firms with high information asymmetry and human capital. Moreover, the negative relationship between organization capital and systematic risk is significantly more pronounced for firms with greater efficiency and firms facing higher industry- and economy-wide risks.

The findings have important implications for investors and policymakers. For example, since organization capital increases idiosyncratic risk and total risk but reduces systematic risk, investors should take organization capital into account in portfolio formation and risk management. Moreover, the findings lend support to the argument on the recognition of intangible assets in financial statements. In particular, the study suggests that standard-setting bodies should consider corporate reporting frameworks to incorporate the disclosure of intangible assets into financial statements, particularly given the recent surge of corporate intangible assets and their critical impact on corporate risks.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to adopt a large sample to provide systematic evidence on the relationship between organization capital and a wide range of risks at the firm level. The authors show that the effect of organization capital on firm risks differs remarkably depending on the kind of firm risk a particular risk measure captures. This study thus makes an original contribution to resolving competing views on the effect of organization capital on firm risks.

The purpose of the current study was first to identify the motives for mergers, and second to examine the effect of mergers on the systematic risk of bidder firms in the airline industry.

To evaluate the effect of mergers in the systematic risk, two different market models are estimated for each company in the sample, one with pre‐merger data and one with post‐merger data. Then the results obtained from the two data sets are compared so as to identify possible differences.

The study has identified three diving motives behind the merges, namely cost efficiency, economies of scale, and market power. All of these motives are expected to affect the new firm's earnings stream and in turn affect its systematic risk. With the use of the market model the individual merger results are mixed and in line with the relevant literature. Nonetheless, the average results showed a decrease in the post‐merger systematic risk.

A reduced post‐merger systematic risk indicates a success in achieving management objectives. Mergers can generate synergetic gains from increasing cost efficiencies and/or scale economies and can also increase shareholders value through the reduction in the new firm's cost of capital. However, to have a more valid perspective a larger number of mergers should be included in the sample together with alternative calculation of systematic risk to test the robustness of the results.

Taking into account the current economic hardship this paper addresses the issue of shareholders wealth maximization through mergers.

The purpose of this paper is to alleviate the moral hazard problem created by deposit insurance and therefore develop a deposit insurance pricing model explicitly considering systematic risk.

Using the market model, the authors introduce the systematic risk component consisting of market risk and beta risk. A closed-form solution for the authors’ pricing model is derived based on the option pricing framework.

Compared with the authors’, the pricing model that ignores systematic risk underestimates deposit insurance premium, and cannot cover the excessive loss created by systematic risk. To examine the effect of the systematic risk component on the deposit insurance premiums estimated by the authors’ model, this paper also provides empirical evidence from China by regression analysis. The results demonstrate that, in addition to the individual failure risk, the systematic risk component is properly priced and explicitly reflected in the authors’ model.

More risk factors such as liquidity risk should be introduced in the pricing of deposit insurance.

Deposit insurance premiums estimated by the authors’ model can alleviate the moral hazard problem that banks have an incentive to take on excessive systematic risk, because substantial higher insurance premiums would be charged in doing so.

Applying the option pricing theory and market model, this paper develops a deposit insurance pricing model with explicit consideration of systematic risk. The systematic risk component contains not only the market volatility but also the sensitivity of market risk.

The literature on the relation between dividends and stock risks include mixed results. The related studies have reached either insignificant, or positive, or negative results. The authors offer a mathematical structure that addresses potential mutual benefits of dividends signaling under conditions of stock risks (systematic and unsystematic). The mathematical structure demonstrates explicitly a case of risk transfer. The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential benefits to firms and stockholders when financial managers adjust dividends per share (DPS) using percentage change in the explanatory power of systematic and unsystematic risks. This perspective is derived from a practical consideration that dividends are part of stock returns that can be adjusted to take stock risks into account.

The paper utilizes the specifications of the two-stage (simultaneous) regression and partial adjustment model. The sample includes quarterly data for firms listed in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and NASDAQ for the period December 31, 1989-March 31, 2011.

The authors have reached general results based on hypotheses developed from related literature. The results show that: first, benefits of risk transfer can be realized. That is, firms as well as stockholders achieve benefits when the DPS are adjusted using percentage change in the explanatory power of systematic risk only; second, dividend growth rates are affected positively by changes in systematic risks; third, the highest stock returns in the market are reached with sharp decreases in dividend growth rates; fourth, in the highest returns quartile, firm size and time do not matter but the industry type does; and fifth, the associations between dividend growth rates, systematic, unsystematic risks, and stock returns are intrinsically nonlinear.

The study contributes to the literature in terms of first, providing practical insights on the financial strategies that help in the use of dividends to convey the right signals to stockholders, and second, empirically show the potential benefits of adjusting dividends growth rates according to systematic and unsystematic stock risks in a unified mathematical structure that adds to the current literature.

This study aims to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk. The theoretical framework used in this study is based on agency and resource dependency theories.

Using a panel data set of 788 firms listed in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Emerging Markets index from 2015 to 2020, the authors apply Panel-Corrected Standard Error estimation method to test the three proposed hypotheses and the two-stage least squares method is adopted for the endogenous test.

The results suggest that board-specific skills diversity (BSSD) and board independence (BIND) have a negative impact on systematic risk. On the other hand, board gender diversity does not affect systematic risk. The findings reinforce the relevance of board diversity for reducing systematic risk and offer valuable insights for policymakers and investors, suggesting that the presence of directors with specific skills and independent directors could reduce firms’ systematic risk.

The study extends the scope of agency and resource dependency theories by suggesting that the BSSD and BIND reduce agency costs and bring critical resources to the firm’s survival.

The findings support policymakers and managers in reducing systematic risk. In addition, the results demonstrate the importance of policies that encourage board diversity and BIND.

The study demonstrates how companies can reduce systematic risk through board diversity and BIND.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between board diversity and systematic risk only in emerging markets.

This paper aims to close gaps in the current literature according to whether there are differences regarding the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and systematic risk when diverse regions of the world are considered, and what the respective drivers for this relationship are. Furthermore, it tests the robustness to alternative measures for CSP and systematic risk.

This study focuses on the impact of corporate social responsibility on systematic firm risk in an international sample. The authors measure CSP emerging from a company's social responsibility efforts by utilizing a CSP rating framework that covers a variety of dimensions. The instrumental variable approach is applied to mitigate endogeneity and identify causal relationships.

The impact of overall CSP on systematic risk is most distinct for North American firms and, in descending order, weaker in Europe, Asia–Pacific and Japan. Risk mitigation applies across all four regions. However, the magnitude of impact differs. While the most critical drivers in North America and Japan include product responsibility, Europe is affected most by the employees category and Asia–Pacific by environmental innovation.

The findings help firms to control their cost of equity and investors may identify low-risk stocks by considering certain aspects of CSP.

This study distinguishes itself from previous literature addressing the connection between systematic risk and CSP by focusing on regional differences in an international sample, using the very transparent CSP measures of Asset4, identifying underlying impact drivers, and testing for robustness to alternative measures of systematic risk.

This paper aims to identify and examine the determinants of downside systematic risk in Australian listed property trusts (LPTs).

Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and lower partial moment‐CAPM (LPM‐CAPM) are employed to compute both systematic risk and downside systematic risk. The methodology of Patel and Olsen and Chaudhry et al. is adopted to examine the determinants of systematic risk and downside systematic risk.

The results confirm that systematic risk and downside systematic risk can be individually identified. There is little evidence to support the existence of linkages between systematic risk in Australian LPTs and financial/management structure determinants. On the other hand, downside systematic risk is directly related to the leverage/management structure of a LPT. The results are also robust after controlling for the LPTs' investment characteristics and varying target rates of return.

Investors and real estate analysts should conscious with the higher returns from high leverage and internally managed LPTs. Although there is no evidence that these higher returns are related to higher systematic risk, there could be the compensation for higher downside systematic risk.

This study provides invaluable insights into the management of real estate risk in Australian LPTs with implications for REITs in other countries. Unlike previous studies of systematic risk in REITs or LPTs, this is the first study to assess downside systematic risk and explore the determinants of downside systematic risk in LPTs.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between loan default and loss given default (LGD) in an agricultural loan portfolio. The analysis employs a simulation model approach to evaluate the role that systematic and non‐systematic risks play in determining the economic capital requirements under different agricultural economic conditions.

The authors employ the theoretical approach suggested by Miu and Ozdemir to assess the role of LGD in the banking industry. A Monte Carlo simulation model is developed using Excel and calibrated to an agricultural credit association using historical data. The simulation model is used to evaluate the mark‐up to economic capital that is implied by increasing credit risks due to cyclical changes in farm real estate values.

The paper demonstrates that historical systematic risks due to the correlation between probability of default (PD) and LGD through the business cycle can result in a significant mark‐up in the economic capital required by an agricultural lender. Using historical land price changes as the driver of systematic risk, the authors show that the correlations between changing PD and land values and between the PD and LGD provide evidence of how sensitive credit risk exposure is to these parameters.

This paper is the first application of the Miu and Ozdemir model of systematic risk to an agricultural lending institution. The model approach can be adapted by farm lenders to evaluate their changing economic capital requirements through an economic cycle in agriculture.

In the context of public-private partnerships (PPPs), it has been argued that the standard valuation framework produces a paradox whereby government appears to be made better off by taking on more systematic risk. This has led to a range of approaches being applied in practice, none of which are consistent with the standard valuation approach. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that these approaches are flawed and unnecessary.

The authors step through the proposed alternative valuation approaches and demonstrate their inconsistencies and illogical outcomes, using theory, logic and mathematical proof.

In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the proposed (alternative) approaches suffer from internal inconsistencies and produce illogical outcomes in some cases. The authors also show that there is no problem with the current accepted theory and that the apparent paradox is not the result of a deficiency in the current theory but is rather caused by its misapplication in practice. In particular, the authors show that the systematic risk of cash flows is frequently mis-estimated, and the correction of this error solves the apparent paradox.

Over the past 20 years, PPP activity around the globe amounts to many billions of dollars. Decisions on major infrastructure funding are of enormous social and economic importance.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the flaws and internal inconsistencies with proposed valuation framework alternatives for the purposes of evaluating PPPs.

The purpose of this study is twofold: to investigate the relationship between restaurant firms’ internationalization and systematic risk, and to further examine the relationship between internationalization and systematic risk based on the type of restaurant firm (i.e. limited-service vs full-service restaurants).

This study analyzes data from US-based publicly traded restaurant firms by estimating systematic risk based on the Carhart four-factor model and by performing a two-way random-effects model.

Findings support not only the risk-reduction effect of internationalization on systematic risk but also the moderating effect of the role of restaurant type on the relationship between internationalization and systematic risk. More specifically, the risk-reduction effect of internationalization on systematic risk is greater for limited-service than full-service restaurants.

The findings of this study can provide restaurant executives with more confidence in pursuing internationalization as part of their risk management strategy, acknowledging that more international operations could mitigate restaurant firms’ systematic risk. More specifically, limited-service restaurants can more significantly enjoy the risk-reduction benefits by increasing their international operations than full-service restaurants based on the findings of this study. Furthermore, risk-averse investors could consider purchasing shares of limited-service multinational restaurants’ stocks to enjoy more risk-reduction benefits.

By focusing on the restaurant industry with consideration for the restaurant type, this study provides more tailored recommendations for implementing internationalization strategies with regard to risk management.