Search results

There is still an ongoing debate on the value relevance of capital structure and its determinants. Recently the issue has been explored in family firms after being explored in mature firms. This paper investigates the role of institutional investors and the firm's innovation activity in influencing the firm's decision and ability to acquire debt capital.

A large sample of 700 privately-held family firms in Italy from 2010 to 2019. Two analysis techniques are used: panel analysis and path analysis. The value of debt and the debt ratio are used as leverage measures. The value of patent (as a proxy for innovation) and institutional investor are the explanatory variables.

The results show that institutional investors have no relationship with financial leverage measures except when controlling for an interaction variable (Institutional investors × Lombardy region). The patent value is positively correlated with debt; however, the ratio patent-to-asset is negatively related to financial leverage indicating higher risk exposure. The nonlinearity test demonstrates a turning point when the relationship between patent value and debt inverts.

Firms should monitor their innovation activity since excessive innovation increases risk exposure and affects financing opportunities and value. The involvement of institutional investors does not always enhance value.

Existing literature focuses separately on family firm innovations and financial leverage as outcome variables, emphasizing the role of institutional investors in both fields by adopting agency theory and socioemotional wealth framework. In this study, the authors go further by merging both relationships, investigating the dynamics of the institutional-family firm innovation relationship in influencing the firm's capital structure. The authors contribute to the ongoing debate by providing original findings on capital structure, governance and innovation, supported by rigorous methods to enhance family firms' decision-making.

This paper aims to investigate the relevance of two groups of valuations models as follows: the accounting models based on the residual income (RIM) and the standard market model, on equity price, return and volatility relevance.

The models are tested on companies traded on Palestine exchange from 2009 to 2018, using panel regression analysis. Two-price and two-return models derived from RIM to compare with the market model and four volatility models.

The standard RIM outperformed other models in equity price modeling. The dividend discount model (DDM) outperformed the rest of the models in terms of return estimation. However, the authors find that the market model can explain equity variance better than RIM and DDM models.

For investors, market beta does not necessarily capture all relevant factors of value and traditional financial statements are still important in providing relevant information and different models are used for different values perspectives (price, return and volatility).

Previous studies focus on comparing the price and return relevance of accounting-based models (RIM and cash flow models). Three aspects differentiate this paper and contribute to its originality, namely, the uniqueness of the context, incorporating the market model into the picture along with the accounting-based models and adding Volatility dimensions of relevance.

The study introduces a new approach to leverage-value relationship. Besides applying the classical regression models, the study deals with leverage as a continuous treatment variable implemented on the firm’s value using the dose-response function (DFR).

After proper model calibration and splitting the treatment (leverage) into ten doses, a response function is generated, which enables the realization of the dose level at which the firm’s value is maximized. Furthermore, the study tests the pecking order theory (POT) and the trade-off theory (TOT) using the threshold model to see whether firms are under or over-indebted. The analysis is carried out on panel data from small-medium enterprises (SMEs), providing more valuable insights than large and mature companies.

The study used two leverage measures: total liabilities ratio and bank debt ratio. Value is measured by the market capitalization and Tobin’s Q. In general, the study finds a positive relationship between leverage and value; POT is not strongly supported, firms are below their optimal leverage and there is a certain leverage dose that would maximize firms’ value.

Since the threshold model and DRF show that SMEs are under-indebted, firms could benefit from extra leverage doses without affecting the firm’s risk profile, especially in a low-interest rate regime, and the potential increase in public-private expenditure after Italy obtained the European Recovery Funds.

The study contributes to new knowledge and understanding of financial leverage from new methodological perspectives, offering valuable insights from SMEs using novel approaches.

This paper aims to investigate the value relevance of the European Emission Allowance (EUA) return and volatility on the equity value of the top listed European Power Generation Firms for the three trading phases of the European Emission Trading Scheme.

The authors use the multifactor financial market model over the period 2005-2016 on daily basis for the return relevance relationship, whereas time series models such as autoregression moving average and generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity are applied on a weighted average portfolio of the sample firms to test serial correlation and volatility of returns.

The findings are novel in which a positive and significant relevance of EUA return on equity return is shown; however, a vanishing effect is seen as one moves to further trading phases. Another remarkable finding is that the return relationship remains constant until a certain level in EUA price then inverts. Finally, the authors present that EUA is considered a systematic factor as firm and country-specific features are not statistically significant.

At policy level, these findings signal policymakers for an appropriate design of the future trading phases in which they achieve the balance between public interests, as climate risk mitigation by reducing emissions, and the private interests of the market players to support innovative changes.

To the authors’ knowledge, this study would be the first to offer recent and comprehensive findings on the economic and financial implications of the European Emission Trading Scheme for the three trading phases. Additionally, the research offers time series robustness check besides the standard regression analysis and shows that there is an optimal EUA price that triggers polluters’ decision on emission and generation.