To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
We provide evidence regarding mutual funds’ motivation to hold lottery stocks. Funds with higher managerial ownership invest less in lottery stocks, suggesting that managers themselves do not prefer such stocks. The evidence instead supports that managers cater to fund investors’ preference for such stocks. In particular, funds with more lottery holdings attract larger flows after portfolio disclosure compared with their peers, and poorly performing funds tend to engage in risk shifting by increasing their lottery holdings toward year-ends. Funds’ aggregate holdings of lottery stocks contribute to their overpricing.
The desire to maintain the sustainable development of humanity is widespread. In the present chapter, it is proposed that Alphabet’s capacity to shape this concern far outstrips that of most other organizations combined. Nevertheless, the megacorporation’s potential to sustain humanity’s development is not universally regarded as a net positive. In recognizing thus, the chapter posits that Alphabet’s current impact on our social futures should be conceived as simultaneously having a more authoritarian, and a more autonomous, element to it. Whilst the exact nature of Alphabet’s impact on our social futures remains to be seen, the chapter’s concluding summary emphasizes – in anticipation of the discussions that begin the book’s third and final part – that the megacorporation’s interest in sustaining our future existence is not just consistent with, but positively enabled by, the custodial role it plays with regards to our personal and social pasts.
Firms with higher R&D intensity subsequently experience higher stock returns in international stock markets, highlighting the role of intangible investments in international asset pricing. The R&D effect is stronger in countries where growth option risk is more likely priced, but is unrelated to country characteristics representing market sentiments and limits-of-arbitrage. Moreover, we find that R&D intensity is associated with higher future operating performance, return volatility, and default likelihood. Our evidence suggests that the cross sectional relation between R&D intensity and stock returns is more likely attributable to risk premium than to mispricing.
Using unique real estate data that allow for accurately measured capital gains, we examine whether sell propensities depend on the magnitude of a seller’s capital gain. We find that short-term sell propensities are flat over losses and increasing in gains. Consistent with their higher sell propensities, selling prices are lower for properties with larger gains. Large-sized short-term stock investments also have sell propensities that are flat over losses and increasing in gains, although the sell propensities of typical-sized short-term stock investments are V-shaped. Our findings provide empirical support for theories of realization utility.
The justice literature has coalesced around the notion that actors (e.g., supervisors) tend to utilize the norm of equity for resource allocation decisions because it is generally considered most fair when employees who contribute more to the organization receive more resources. Yet, actors might sometimes utilize a need norm to allocate resources to those most in need. Studies that have addressed need-based resource allocations have assumed a relatively straightforward conceptualization of need. However, research from related areas suggests that multiple characteristics of the need itself could trigger actors’ use of a need norm to allocate resources. We advance a theoretical framework that outlines various need characteristics that drive actors’ use of a need norm. The framework draws on the processes outlined in attribution theory and integrates those with the content domains addressed in fairness theory. A discussion of the implications for justice, attribution, and fairness theory research follows.
We document that global board reforms are associated with a significant reduction in the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs). The effect is amplified for IPOs with greater agency problems and mitigated for IPOs certified by reputable intermediaries, IPOs with greater disclosure specificity, and IPOs in countries with better shareholder protection and stringent financial reporting regulations. Furthermore, global board reforms have led to an improvement in the long-term market performance, proceeds, and subscription level of IPOs and have enhanced board independence in the issuing firms. Our findings suggest that global board reforms have strengthened board oversight in the issuing firms, leading to less underpriced IPOs.
The final chapter notes that Alphabet’s megacorporate existence could, further to the ideological reasons detailed in Chapter 8, potentially be brought to an end by two sets of considerations that are readily apparent right now. The first set of considerations relates to discord amongst the megacorporation’s employees, and the second to anti-monopoly sentiment. Taken together, these considerations suggest that, in the short term, Alphabet’s capacity to remain a megacorporation will likely turn on its capacity to account for disruptive elements from within; and its capacity to avoid being undermined by anti-trust threats from without. The chapter’s summary then brings the book to a close by emphasizing that, even if Alphabet’s existence comes to an end sooner rather than later, the megacorporate concept it is an example of, the identification of the infinite times ideology that informs it and the philosophical perspective that I have used to discuss it, remain of value: for they all help reveal that corporate influence over society is more profound than is commonly recognized.
As a megacorporation, Alphabet is, by definition, an organizational agent of the highest degree. Nevertheless, it is neither entirely self-defined nor self-created. In particular, it has been shaped by the Silicon Valley context from within which it emerged. Accordingly, the chapter’s first section provides an overview of the key actors and sectors that have helped define, and mythologize, Silicon Valley. Following this, Google’s emergence, success and transformation are described and explained. Then, and in accord with the characteristics detailed in Chapter 2, Alphabet is shown to be a megacorporation. As Alphabet’s global scale and broad scope, monopolistic tendencies, corporate social responsibility concerns and political-economic hybridity are relatively simple to describe, the chapter’s summary notes that it is the megacorporation’s existential impacts – on the extent, and our experience of, the past and the future – that is focused on throughout the book’s second part.
Chapter 2 details the megacorporate concept. It begins by noting that, whilst references to the idea of a megacorporation can be found in contemporary works of fiction, these references tend to be vague. The chapter’s following section thus turns to the task of differentiating the idea of a megacorporation from three other corporate types: i.e. normal corporations, multinational corporations and total corporations. After this, it is proposed that, in addition to being generally characterized by their global scale of activities and broad scope of influence, megacorporations are more specifically characterized by their monopolistic activities, their social responsibility concerns, their political-economic hybridity and by their existential impact on our lives. Given these criteria, the chapter’s penultimate section proposes that the East India Company provides a clear historical example of a megacorporation. A brief summary brings the chapter to its conclusion.
Business confidence is a measure of optimism or pessimism that managers feel about the commercial prospects for their organizations. This paper uses later medieval high-value English credit data as a proxy gauge of merchants’ business confidence or uncertainty. It discusses whether mercantile restriction of credit during the fifteenth-century recession reflects uncertainty, whereby merchants became increasingly risk-averse and so reduced the amount of credit they extended to their customers. It discusses the chronological trends in English lending between 1353 and 1532. This paper examines medieval debt restructuring and argues that this might similarly reflect merchants’ commercial confidence or uncertainty. In contrasting two sample years (1375 and 1433), the paper seeks to identify the motivations and influences that lay behind medieval merchants’ business decisions more fully. It argues that merchants’ investment behavior was guided more by local commercial circumstances than it was by profound economic shocks, such as plague and bullion famine.
Passive exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are ideally suited to style-level feedback trading because of their high liquidity, ease of short selling, and pure play on investment styles. I find strong evidence of short-term style-momentum trading in ETFs. Institutional investors that use ETFs do not act as arbitrageurs by trading against style momentum. Institutions, especially less sophisticated ones, are themselves style-momentum traders. Moreover, recent style-level demand predicts style-level return reversals. These findings suggest that uninformed positive feedback trading by less sophisticated market participants can destabilize financial markets in the short run.