To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

Does liberalization reduce agency costs? Evidence from the Indian banking sector

Journal of Banking & Finance 2008 32(3), 405-419
On February 16, 2002, the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular that signaled a policy liberalization facilitating acquisition of private sector banks in India by foreign entities. Portfolios of private sector and nationalized banks posted significant value gains in the days surrounding the announcement. The gains by private sector banks were almost double those of nationalized banks. We further analyze the firm specific abnormal returns using cross-sectional regressions and find a significant relation between firm-specific abnormal returns and factors typically associated with a bank’s potential for takeover. These results provide the first empirical support for Stulz’s hypothesis that one cause of the valuation gains associated with liberalization is the expected gain from a reduction of agency costs.

Estimating Bargaining Power in the Market for Existing Homes

The Review of Economics and Statistics 2003 85(1), 178-188
Although bargaining is common in markets for heterogeneous goods, it has largely been ignored in the hedonic literature. In a break from that tradition, we establish sufficient conditions that permit one to identify the effect of buyer and seller bargaining on hedonic models. Our model is estimated using a previously overlooked feature of the American Housing Survey that permits us to observe characteristics of both buyers and sellers. Results suggest that household wealth, gender, and other demographic traits influence bargaining power. In addition, variation in bargaining power arising from the presence of school-age children accounts for anomalous seasonal patterns reported in various widely cited indices of quality-adjusted house prices.

Do Investors See through Mistakes in Reported Earnings?

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2011 46(6), 1917-1946 open access
Abstract This study investigates whether investors see through materially misstated earnings, and whether they anticipate earnings restatements. For firms that restate at least one annual report, we find that investors are misled by mistakes in reported earnings at the time of initial earnings announcements. Investors react positively to the component of the favorable earnings surprise that will subsequently be restated, and they attach the same valuation to it as to the true earnings surprise. We also find that investors anticipate the subsequent downward restatements and start marking stock prices down several months before a restatement announcement, so that the full impact of a restatement is about three times as large as the restatement announcement effect. Indeed, we show that investors punish restating firms because the stock price gains that shareholders enjoy when firms initially announce overstated earnings are more than reversed by the time of the restatement announcement.