Search results

The paper aims to find out the information content of performance measures from accounting and value-based measures that best explain the total shareholder return.

To achieve this aim, static and dynamic panel data regression analysis is applied to the sample of 56 Indian companies taken from the Nifty Midcap 100 Index, between 2012 and 2019.

It is found that accounting-based measures have more relative information content in predicting total shareholder return as compared to value-based measures. Economic value added (EVA) and cash value added (CVA) do not add to the information content provided by accounting-based measures. A combination of accounting-based measures and value-added intellectual coefficient (VAIC) adds marginally to the information content provided by accounting-based measures in explaining the total shareholder return. Dynamic panel regression analysis shows that return on assets (ROA), return on capital employed (ROCE), return on equity (ROE) and EVA have a significant impact on total shareholder return.

In this study, along with EVA, other measures from value-based measures, i.e. CVA are empirically tested to explain the total shareholder return. Intellectual capital efficiency computed by VAIC is also empirically tested along with accounting-based measures, EVA, CVA and market value added (MVA). To bring robustness to findings, data are tested by using dynamic panel regression analysis.

The framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) is principles-based and does not provide specific key performance indicators (KPIs) for integrated thinking and reporting. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to propose KPIs for integrated reporting which decipher a firm’s sustainability through empirical analysis.

As a proxy of firms’ sustainability, the authors focus on firms that have survived for more than 100 years and that have already achieved sustainability, and analyze these firms to reveal the financial features that distinguish sustainable firms from the other firms.

The study found two distinguishing facts: the value added that is distributed to stakeholders other than shareholders is significantly larger, and the stability of profitability and the profitability itself are significantly higher in sustainable firms.

The study proposes a value-added distribution and the stability of profitability as sustainability KPIs for integrated reporting.

First, this study provides the first evidence that value added distribution and the stability of profitability distinguish a firm’s sustainability. Second, it provides a new perspective in the search for sustainability KPIs. Third, as the empirical data consist of all listed firms in 136 countries, the results should be robust and general.

The purpose of this paper is to determine if there is a link between corporate shareholder value creation and economic growth. The first objective of this paper is to determine which specific shareholder value measurement best explains shareholder value creation for a particular industry. The next objective of the study is to establish, for each of nine different categories of firms examined, a set of value drivers that are unique and significant in expressing shareholder value for that particular category of firms. Lastly, the relationship between shareholder value creation and economic growth is tested.

To quantify and measure value creation, the paper investigates the various value creation measurements that are being applied. The next step is to ascertain whether various industries have different value creation measures that best explain value creation for the respective industries. Then, the value drivers of these specific value creation measures can be determined and their relationship with economic growth tested.

The results of this study indicate that each industry does have a specific shareholder value creation measurement that best explains shareholder value creation for that industry; for example, for five of the nine categories (industries) that were analyzed, market value added was found to be the best shareholder value creation measurement, but for capital-intensive firms and manufacturing firms, the Qratio is the best measure, while for the food and beverage industry, the market to book ratio was found to be a better measure of shareholder value creation than other measures tested. It was further found that an increase in corporate shareholder value creation is to the detriment of economic growth.

The contribution of the present study is its determination of a unique shareholder value creation measurement for particular industries. In addition, a specific set of variables per industry that create shareholder value is identified. Lastly, the important link between shareholder value creation and economic growth is exposed.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the shareholder value creation measure best suited to express shareholder value creation for a particular industry.

The analysis was performed on 192 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, classified into nine different samples or industries. Five shareholder value creation measures were examined, namely market value added (MVA), a market-adjusted stock return, the market-to-book ratio, Tobin’s Q ratio, and the return on capital employed divided by the cost of equity.

An analysis of the nine categories of firms led to the identification of different measures that are suited to express value creation. Stock returns did not provide an appropriate value measure. Instead, depending on the specific industry, Tobin’s Q ratio, MVA, and the market-to-book ratio should be used to measure and express value creation.

For management, the value drivers identified for each industry present a clear indication of industry-specific variables upon which they can focus in operating activities to most efficiently increase shareholder value.

Unlike previous studies that use only one or two different shareholder value creation measures as dependent variables, this study uses five different value creation measures. Another contribution of this study is the compilation of a unique set of value drivers that explain shareholder value creation separately for each of the nine different categories of firms.

Prior studies on determinants of shareholder value creation have reported conflicting and sometimes confusing results. In this study, to obtain more refined and industry-specific results regarding variables determining shareholder value creation, an analysis was performed focusing on different categories of firms or industries.

Two dependent and 11 independent variables were applied to five different industries to obtain the best set of significant value drivers of shareholder value creation for a particular industry.

Market value added (MVA) is a better indicator of shareholder value created compared to a market adjusted return. Accounting-based variables (EPS, ROA and NOPAT) are superior to economic-based variables (EVA and ROCE) in explaining shareholder value creation, but results differ, depending on the dependent variable chosen as shareholder value creation measure. For each industry, there is a unique set of variables that determine shareholder value creation; the industrial goods industry has seven significant value drivers, namely, EPS, NOPAT, ROCE, the Spread, EVA, EBEI and REVA, whilst for the food and beverages industry, there were only two significant value drivers (EPS and ROA).

These findings imply that management, analysts and shareholders should, depending on the specific industry in which their firm operates, take into account a more specific set of variables when making their financial decisions, including compensation or reward structuring.

Although intellectual capital (IC) has been proven to be value-added for companies, the drivers of IC performance remain an under-researched area. From the perspective of corporate governance, the purpose of this paper is to examine how controlling the ownership of shareholders would influence IC performance.

This study utilized value-added intellectual capital (VAIC^TM) and its subcomponents, namely human capital, structural capital and capital employed efficiencies, to proxy for IC performance and regression analyses to assess the association between controlling the ownership of shareholders and the IC performance of Taiwanese listed semiconductor firms for the years 2009–2017.

Results show that controlling the ownership of shareholders is nonlinearly related to IC performance. Specifically, controlling their ownership positively affects the level of IC performance up to an optimal point before it turns to be a negative relationship thereafter.

The results of this study can help policy makers and other stakeholders understand the role of controlling shareholders in determining IC performance. The findings of this study suggest a nonlinear relationship between controlling the ownership of shareholders and IC.

This study provides an extended perspective in studies related to the determinants of IC by considering the resources provided by controlling shareholders. The definitions of controlling interests and IC applied in this study are compared and aligned with those found in the International Financial Reporting Standard 10 – Consolidated Financial Statements and the International Integrated Reporting Council, respectively.

Following the recognition of the separation of ownership and control in the large firm espoused by Berle and Means (1932), a debate ensued on the possible effect of such separation on the value/or performance of the large firm. This controversy was evidenced in both theoretical and empirical studies on the relation between the allocation of shares among managers and non‐managers, and corporate value/or performance (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Stulz, 1988; Morck, Schleifer and Vishny, 1988; Demsetz and Lehn, 1985; Holderness and Sheehan, 1985; Hermalin and Weisbad, 1987; and Riahi‐Belkaoui and Pavlik, 1992). Empirical studies focused specifically on the relationship between Tobin Q or accounting‐based profit measures of performance, and equity ownership, yielding mixed results.

Until recently, occupiers have ignored the financial benefits real estate can add to the value of their firms. Corporate real estate (CRE) is now on the corporate agenda and CRE executives are being challenged by shareholders and senior management to employ best practice techniques to unlock the hidden value in the firm’s real estate portfolio. This paper offers a practical decision framework to allow this to happen and explores the potential for them and for real estate investors to capture this value. The paper is based on the author’s experience of advising occupiers and investors and his increasing knowledge of corporate finance principles.

The main aim of this paper is to examine the claim that economic value added (EVA) advocates its superiority over the traditional accounting-based financial performance measures, i.e. profit after tax (PAT), earnings per share (EPS), return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE) and return on investment (ROI) in the Indian manufacturing sector and at the same time, give empirical facts. It also tests and examines the information content of various performance measures and their relationship with stock returns.

The paper uses the sample of 534 Indian manufacturing companies from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) during the period 2000–2018. Multiple regression models are applied to examine the information content of EVA and traditional performance measures in explaining shareholders’ returns.

Relative information content tests revealed that traditional accounting-based measures such as EPS, ROE and ROA performed better than EVA in explaining the returns of Indian manufacturing companies. Incremental information content of EVA adds little contribution to information content above traditional performance measures. The claim of superiority of EVA over accounting-based measures in association with shareholder returns is proved invalid in Indian manufacturing companies.

This study concludes that EVA has no superiority over traditional accounting-based financial performance measures in explaining stock returns of Indian manufacturing companies. To achieve heftiness in outcomes, panel data are tested by using Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey (BPG) test for heteroskedasticity, Hausman’s test for fixed and random effect, variance inflation factor (VIF) test for multicollinearity and Durbin–Watson test for autocorrelation.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.