Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine institutional investor demand for shares of firms that announce patents.

There are three important dates in the process of obtaining a patent. First, a patent filer requests the right for intellectual property on the application date. Next, the content of a patent becomes publicly available on the publication date, if authorized by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Third, once the patent is validated, it is issued on the grant date. The authors focus on the publication date, as it marks the time when the patent-specific information is disclosed to public. In a regression framework, the authors analyze how institutional investors respond to patent publications.

The authors document a significant increase in institutional demand for a firm’s shares around patent announcements. Institutional investors react more strongly to patent publications announced by firms that have published frequently in the past. The increase in demand is also greater when the firm’s shareholder base consists of a higher percentage of long-term institutions. Institutional trading around patent announcements is associated with higher levels of stock price informativeness. In addition, firms that announce patents exhibit long-term outperformance relative to a control sample. Overall, the results suggest that institutional trading conveys information about the value of patents.

This study is the first to explore changes in institutional demand around patent publications and to show that such events attract institutional investors and have an impact on shareholder wealth, price informativeness and liquidity.

The theory of the monetary circuit, as developed in its most powerful form by Graziani (1989), has made a significant contribution to the analysis of credit money in Marxian economics. A key issue is the extent to which circuit theory fails to take into account the relationship between sectors producing capital and consumption goods. In Marx’s reproduction schema, how much money do capitalists need to advance in order for exchange between sectors to balance, and for the circuit to be closed? The purpose of this paper is to address this issue by examining different models of the monetary circuit, each of which has a textual grounding in Marx’s often contradictory musings in Capital, Volume 2.

Alongside alternative conceptions of the circuit of money, different interpretations exist about the role of the multiplier, which can be nested in Marx’s reproduction schema. The problem, from a Marxian point of view, is that in the existing literature investment is usually confined to the capital goods sector. It can be argued that Marx, for the most part, viewed investment as involving accumulation in both departments of production. Using a multiplier framework, derived from input-output technology, this wider treatment of investment is considered as an alternative way of modelling the circulation of money. In addition to contributing to Marxian analysis of the money circuit, this approach could also be more accessible to a wider Post Keynesian audience, since a scalar Keynesian multiplier is employed.

With this chapter, we seek to shed light on the question how headquarters (HQ) can cope with geographic distance and effectively transfer relevant knowledge to their subsidiaries. By constructing a mediating model, we aim at disentangling the effects of geographic distance on the relevance of HQ knowledge to their subsidiaries, via the creation of a shared context between HQ and their subsidiaries. We tested our hypotheses using partial least squares based structural equation modelling on a sample of 124 European subsidiaries. We did not find a significant direct relationship between geographic distance and HQ knowledge relevance. Yet, we found support for our mediation hypotheses that geographic distance makes it more difficult for HQ to establish a shared normative and operational context, but that both dimensions of shared context can help HQ to transfer relevant knowledge to their subsidiaries. We contribute to the research on knowledge flows in multinational corporations (MNC) by investigating knowledge relevance directly rather than knowledge flows as such. We also advance our understanding of shared context in HQ-subsidiary relationships by showing that shared context comprises an operational and a normative dimension. Moreover, we contribute to social learning theory in basing our reasoning on the idea that shared practices and social relationships help overcoming distance to manage knowledge transfer more effectively. Finally, we add to the research of distance in international business by conceptualizing space, organizational context and knowledge transfer in one comprehensive model.

As markets become increasingly competitive, it is important for multinational corporations to generate value. Both headquarters and subsidiaries are responsible for contributing to value generation, albeit they may do so in different ways. This builds on the notion from the literature that it is possible to discern two separate concepts that relate to the generation of value, namely, value creation and value added. These concepts are often used interchangeably, without a clear distinction what they de facto reflect or what the underlying mechanisms of value creation and value added are.

Based on a set of assumptions regarding headquarters–subsidiary relations conceptual arguments related to value generation are developed.

Teasing out the differences between the concepts becomes important as it leads to a fuller understanding of what a headquarters do in different situations and of what a headquarters–subsidiary relationship entails for value generation.

In this chapter, it is argued that value-adding activities tend to be conducted by a headquarters, but are dependent on varying knowledge situations of headquarters, while the value creation process tends to take place at the subsidiary level.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The present study approaches multinational corporations as internal networks that are constantly newly organized on the basis of relationships, operations, activities, and tasks at hand. It combines MNCs-as-networks view with the research on supplier–customer relationship development to conceptualize the relational dynamics in the MNCs. The dynamics are seen created as the interplay of organizing within internal networks and managing of the global customer relationships. Through an empirical study on a project business MNC and analysis of the events in its global customer relationship the study defines strategies of political compromising in MNC internal networks.

Despite increased interest in headquarters (HQ) and their activities, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of HQ relocations and their consequences. We seek to address this gap by examining whether HQ relocations are primarily driven by cost-reduction or value-creation motives, whether these motivations vary by HQ type and how these relocation patterns vary over time. We explore these questions on the basis of a unique hand-collected database of 227 HQ relocations in Europe between 2000 and 2012. Our findings illustrate that different types of HQ units play their orchestrating role in different ways and that their relocations are driven by different motives. Furthermore, our data suggest that although all types of HQ units are increasingly mobile, the implications of relocations for the MNC may differ considerably by HQ type. These findings contribute to a more fine-grained understanding of the drivers of HQ relocations and open up various new avenues for future research on HQ relocation and the role of HQ units in the orchestration of MNCs’ internal networks.

This chapter examines a multifactor model for stock returns in nine Asian markets (Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand). The authors develop a model using the market risk premium, size, book-to-market, profitability, investment, momentum, price-to-earnings ratio, and dividend yield factors for each market. The empirical results suggest that this eight-factor model can better explain the variations of stock returns than the original Fama–French three-factor model. Factor-based models using local data outperform those using data from US markets. In addition, the evidence suggests that the eight-factor model can better explain stock returns when the market is under stress.