Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Popular Argument (popular + argument)
Selected AbstractsWHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT STOCK REPURCHASES?JOURNAL OF APPLIED CORPORATE FINANCE, Issue 1 2000Gustavo Grullon Stock repurchases by U.S. companies experienced a remarkable surge in the 1980s and ,90s. Indeed, in 1998, the total value of all stock repurchased by U.S. companies exceeded for the first time the total amount paid out as cash dividends. And the U.S. repurchase movement has gone global in the past few years, spreading not only to Canada and the U.K., but also to countries like Japan and Germany, where such transactions were prohibited until recently. Why are companies buying back their stock in such amounts? After dismissing the popular argument that stock repurchases boost earnings per share, the authors argue that repurchases serve to add value in two main ways: (1) they provide managers with a tax-efficient means of returning excess capital to shareholders and (2) they allow managers to "signal" to investors their view that the firm is undervalued. Returning excess capital is value-adding for two reasons: First, it helps prevent companies from pursuing growth and size at the expense of profitability and value. Second, by returning capital to investors, repurchases (like dividends) play the critically important economic function of allowing investors to channel their investment from mature or declining sectors of the economy to more promising ones. But if stock repurchases and dividends serve the same basic economic function, why are repurchases growing more rapidly? Part of the explanation is that, because repurchases are taxed as capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, repurchases are a more tax-efficient way of distributing excess capital. But perhaps even more important than their tax treatment is the flexibility that (at least) open market repurchases provide corporate managers-flexibility to make small adjustments in capital structure, to exploit (or correct) perceived undervaluation of the firm's shares, and possibly even to increase the liquidity of the stock, which could be particularly valuable in bear markets. For U.S. regulators, the growth in open market stock repurchases raises some interesting issues. Perhaps most important, companies are not required to (and rarely do) furnish their investors with details about a given program's structure, execution method, number of shares repurchased, or even its duration. Policy regulators (and corporate executives as well) should consider some of the benefits provided by other systems, notably Canada's, which provide greater transparency and more guidelines for the repurchase process. [source] Theistic Ethics and the Euthyphro DilemmaJOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS, Issue 1 2002Richard Joyce It is widely believed that the Divine Command Theory is untenable due to the Euthyphro Dilemma. This article first examines the Platonic dialogue of that name, and shows that Socrates's reasoning is faulty. Second, the dilemma in the form in which many contemporary philosophers accept it is examined in detail, and this reasoning is also shown to be deficient. This is not to say, however, that the Divine Command Theory is true,merely that one popular argument for rejecting it is unsound. Finally some brief thoughts are presented concerning where the real problems lie for the theory. [source] The Global Financial Crisis and the Efficient Market Hypothesis: What Have We Learned?JOURNAL OF APPLIED CORPORATE FINANCE, Issue 4 2009Ray Ball The sharp economic downturn and turmoil in the financial markets, commonly referred to as the "global financial crisis," has spawned an impressive outpouring of blame. The efficient market hypothesis (EMH),the idea that competitive financial markets exploit all available information when setting security prices,has been singled out for particular attention. Like all successful theories, the EMH has major limitations, even as it continues to provide the foundation for not only past accomplishment, but future advances in the field of finance. Despite the theory's undoubted limitations, the claim that it is responsible for the current worldwide crisis seems wildly exaggerated. This essay shows the misreading of the theory and logical inconsistencies involved in popular arguments that EMH played a significant role in (1) the formation of the real estate and stock market bubbles, (2) investment practitioners' miscalculation of risks, and (3) the failure of regulators to recognize the bubbles and avert the crisis. At the same time, the author argues that the collapse of Lehman Brothers and other large financial institutions, far from resulting from excessive faith in efficient markets, reflects a failure to heed the lessons of efficient markets. In the author's words, "To me, Lehman's demise conclusively demonstrates that, in a competitive capital market, if you take massive risky positions financed with extraordinary leverage, you are bound to lose big one day,no matter how large and venerable you are." Finally, behavioral finance, widely considered as challenging and even supplanting efficient markets theory, is viewed in this article as complementing if not reinforcing efficient markets theory. As the author says, "it takes a theory to beat a theory." Behavioralism, for all its important contributions to finance literature, is described as not a theory but rather "a collection of ideas and results", one that depends for its existence on the theory of efficient markets. [source] Liberal Nationalism and Territorial RightsJOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, Issue 1 2003Tamar Meisels It asks what type of justifications could be morally acceptable to "liberal nationalism" for the acquisition and holding of territory. To this end, the paper takes a brief look at five central arguments for territorial entitlement which have become predominant in political debates. These are: so called "historical rights" to territory; demands for territorial restitution; efficiency arguments; claims of entitlement to territories settled by co-nationals; and lastly, territorial demands based on claims of equal entitlement to the earth's natural resources. These popular arguments point towards several potential criteria for the arbitration of territorial conflicts. The paper attempts to outline the morally relevant guidelines for thinking about territorial issues that flow from, or are at least consistent with, applying liberal values to the national phenomenon. It places the territorial aspect of nationalism at the head of the liberal nationalist agenda and offers an initial common ground for discussion (including disagreement) among liberals, and for the mediation of claims between nations. [source] | ||||||||||