Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of CEO compensation plans and the risk of managerial equity portfolios with the extent of strategic investments in advertising, capital expenditures and research and development (R&D). The elements of compensation are salary, bonuses, options and restricted stock grants. The authors proxy the design of CEO equity portfolios by the price performance sensitivity of the holdings and the portfolio deltas.

The authors use the components of executive compensation and portfolio risk as the dependent variables, regressing these against measures for the level of strategic investment. The authors test for non-linear relationships between the components of CEO compensation and strategic investments. The sample is a broad cross-section from 1992 to 2016.

The authors find strong support for non-linear relationships of capital expenditures and R&D with CEO bonuses, option grants and restricted stock grants. There are very complex relationships between the components of executive compensation and R&D expenditures, but little evidence of a relationship with advertising expenditures. The authors also find strong complex relationships in the design of CEO equity portfolios with advertising and R&D.

Little earlier research has considered advertising, capital expenditures and R&D in a unified framework. Also, testing for non-linear associations provides much greater insight into the relationship between the components of executive compensation and strategic investment. The findings represent a valuable incremental contribution to the executive compensation literature. The results also have normative policy implications for compensation committees’ design of optimal annual CEO compensation packages to incentivize or discourage particular strategic investment behavior.

The purpose of this paper is to reexamine the corporate focus hypothesis to establish the characteristics of firms that discontinue operations. The authors concentrate on four interrelated elements of the hypothesis, diversification, performance, financial constraint and market-based risk measures. The authors also examine whether firms reporting positive- or negative-valued discontinued operations have different characteristics.

Analyzing discontinued operations provides a broad sample of strategically important exit decisions using a variety of different disposal methods. The authors use logistic regression models to explore whether the elements of the corporate focus hypotheses, and interactions between them, explain decisions to discontinue operations, and also the differences between firms making negative- and positive-valued announcements.

Firms that discontinue operations are more diverse, with weak operating performance, higher financial constraints and perform poorly in financial markets. Interrelationships between these factors strongly affect exit decisions. Companies reporting negative-valued discontinued operations are smaller, make lower capital investments and face greater cash constraints and market risk. Those announcing positive-valued discontinuations are larger and make higher payouts and capital expenditures. Their overall performance is weaker than for control firms, but clearly superior to companies discontinuing negative-valued operations.

Discounted operations represent a wide range of exit decisions. They provide a much larger sample than most previous studies of divestitures. The authors include β, the Sharpe ratio, cash holdings, payouts to shareholders, capital expenditures and also cross-product terms between the elements of the corporate focus hypothesis, all of which have received little attention in prior research. There are significant differences between firms announcing positive and negative-valued discontinued operations.

The survival rate of newly listed firms is low, and there is evidence of a surge of poorly performing new listed firms leading up to the crash of the dot.com bubble. The author investigates this phenomenon and analyzes investors' ability to understand the quality of accounting information and to adjust their expectations.

The author employs the dividend discount model in conjunction with clean surplus accounting discussed by Ohlson (1995) to compare the value relevance of earnings and research and development (R&D) expenditures for short and longer listed National Association of Security Dealer Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) firms between 1980 and 2014. The author also uses univariate tests and logistic regression to analyze both recently listed and short-listed firms. In this analysis, the author compares the differences in investors' expectations for the first five years for both types of firms.

The author provides convincing evidence that markets clearly placed lower valuation weights on accounting earnings and R&D expenditures for short-listed firms on NASDAQ. Market participants originally had high expectations for these ventures. But, they gradually understood the lower quality of accounting information and adjusted their expectations downward.

The author’s results show that optimistic expectations along with easy equity financing created a surge of new listings. My analysis of the interplay between the quality of accounting information and investors' expectations indicates a negative spillover effect where investors are overoptimistic about firms that rode on waves of new listings backed by liberal financing. The author shows that analysis of Tobin's Q and negative earnings can separate ill-prepared from longer-listed firms.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.