Search

The purpose of this article is to explain the returns of American Depository Receipts (ADRs), compar-ing the results across emerging and developed markets. Using a sample of 167 ADRs from 14 emerg-ing and 17 developed markets (31 markets in total) for the period 2000–2004, we found variations in the impacts of specific variables and in the explanatory power of models associated with the annual holding-period return of firms. Dividing ADRs into emerging and developed markets suggests that firm size and local market conditions influenced returns in the two groups in similar ways. However, firm-specific business risk and country-specific economic risk are only important to emerging markets’ ADRs, while country-specific exchange-rate variables are more important to developed markets’ ADRs. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

We survey 642 top financial executives to learn their views about their firm’s share repurchases from January 1998 to September 1999. Based on 194 responses from managers of firms engaging in open-market repurchases, the results show that the most highly cited reasons for repurchasing shares of common stock are consistent with the signaling hypothesis, specifically the undervaluation version of this hypothesis. When compared to the results of previous surveys, our findings suggest that the importance management attaches to certain reasons for repurchasing shares of common stock may have changed over the past few decades. Reasons such as repurchasing shares to provide shares for incentive plans and to remove large blocks of stocks appear less important while reasons such as repurchasing shares to adjust the firm’s capital structure and to avoid dividend taxation appear more important.

We survey managers of Nasdaq firms that consistently pay cash dividends to determine their views about dividend policy, the relationship between dividend policy and value, and four common explanations for paying dividends. The evidence shows that managers stress the importance of maintaining dividend continuity and widely agree that changes in dividends affect firm value. Managers give the strongest support to a signaling explanation for paying dividends, weak to little support for the tax-preference and agency cost explanations, and no support to the bird-in-the-hand explanation. The study provides new evidence about how managers view dividend life cycles and residual dividend policy.

This paper revisits the dividend puzzle, described here as questions about the relevance of dividend policy and how managers should (and do) determine dividend policy. We examine theoretical and empirical research on dividends and share repurchases because they are the principal mechanisms by which corporations disburse cash to their shareholders. Despite a voluminous amount of study, researchers still do not have all the answers to the dividend puzzle. However, we are closer to its resolution. We also do not have definitive answers to why managers choose one method of cash distribution over the other. Solving the dividend puzzle may depend on understanding the effects of various market imperfections or frictions. Because various imperfections affect firms differently, dividend policy may vary substantially from one firm to another. Models that consider the competing frictions on a firm-specific basis offer promise for resolving the dividend puzzle.

This study reports the results of a 1999 survey of Nasdaq-listed firms. Respondents provided information about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy. Our results suggest that many managers of Nasdaq firms make dividend decisions consistent with Lintner's (1956) survey results and model. The results also show significant differences between the manager responses of financial and non-financial firms on nine of the 22 factors. This finding implies the presence of industry effects on dividend policy decisions. In general, the same factors that are important to Nasdaq firms are also important to NYSE firms.

This study examines the ethical attitudes and practices of securities analysts and portfolio managers from four Pacific Rim countries – Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Thailand – and compares the findings to a similar study of North American investment professionals to identify significant differences. The findings show that many differences exist due to cultural differences and differences in the regulatory environment between the Pacific Rim countries studied and North America.

This study reports the results ofa survey about the ethical behavior ofsecurities analysts and portfolio man- agers in Singapore and compares the responses ofinvestment professionals in Singapore and North America. The evidence shows that most respondents from Singapore view investment professionals as "moderately ethical." They also believe that ethical standards among investment professionals in Singapore have improved during the past decade and are likely to improve over the next ten years. Respondents also believe senior management plays a key role in providing training and education for investment professionals. The most commonly reported ethical or legal violations are trading based on inside information or communicating inside il1formatio11.. The most important deter- rent to unethical or illegal behavior is concern about government anctions. A comparison of the responses from inlestment profes ionals in Singapore and North America shows many significant d!fferences, which largely may be explained by different cultural and regulatory environments.

The authors analyze the responses to a mail survey of securities analysts who were asked about their ethical behavior and the ethical behavior of people with whom they work. The findings show the types of ethical violations that occur and the frequency with which they occur. The findings also show how respondents deal with observed violations of ethical behavior. All responses are analyzed to determine if differences exist between the responses of analysts having different characteristics (gender, age, years of employment, and education), and differences in employment circumstances (firm size, firm type, buy side/sell side, U.S./Canada).

Each year many firms repurchase shares of their common stock. Research evidence shows that when firms announce the repurchase of common stock, their share prices typically rise. Numerous studies attribute these increases to a signaling effect. But some firms that announce their intention of repurchasing shares of common stock either repurchase no shares at all or repurchase fewer shares than initially announced. Although the practice of firms intentionally announcing the repurchase of more shares than they expect to repurchase is illegal, the expected increase in share prices may give firms an incentive to make such false announcements.This study surveys top financial executives to learn the extent that firms repurchase fewer shares than announced, identify the reasons for this activity, and learn how managers view this activity. We surveyed 642 firms that conducted common stock repurchases from January 1998 to September 1999. Based on 218 responses, we find that while managers are uncertain about the legality of this activity, they believe that the intentional repurchase of fewer shares than announced is unethical, sends a false signal to the market, and damages the firm’s credibility with its stockholders. Managers also believe that firms repurchasing fewer shares than announced should publicly reveal both the reason for not repurchasing all shares and the amount by which the repurchase fell short of the firm’s announced intentions. Despite these beliefs, managers report that repurchasing fewer shares than announced is a common practice.

Previous research has investigated portfolio timing success by analyzing possible shifts in the beta of professionally managed portfolios. The methodology used by these studies usually involves calculating the betas of portfolios under varing market conditions using ex post holding period yields. Since a portfolio's beta can shift for reasons other than timing efforts, the results and interpretation of this type of analysis are limited. This paper takes a more direct approach to the analysis of timing by analyzing shifts in the asset composition of professionally managed portfolios. The asset composition is first analyzed to determine if portfolio managers are attempting to adjust risk exposure. Any shifts that are identified are compared to the market conditions that existed subsequent to the shift to determine if the shift was appropriate in terms of correct timing.