Impacts of trade liberalization in Canada's supply managed dairy industry

Trade is an integral part of the Canadian economy. The main institutional drivers governing trade are bilateral and multilateral agreements outlining permissible trade distorting measures. Since its inception in 1972, Canada's supply management system has remained protected throughout trade negotiations. The system appears, by any economic measure, to be having an increasingly disproportional influence in recent trade negotiations. However, trade agreements serve not only to maximize social surplus, but also to maximize some measure of political welfare. Canada has recently negotiated three prominent trade agreements: the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) came into effect in the latter part of 2017; the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) came into effect at the end of 2018; and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) could come into effect in 2020. Collectively, these agreements have guaranteed increased market access for fresh and processed dairy products. We build a spatial partial equilibrium model of the Canadian dairy industry consisting of three regions and 10 commodities to assess the individual and cumulative effect of these trade agreements. We pay particular attention to the institutional drivers within today's dairy sector: milk protein isolates; component pricing, including Class 7; and differential demand growth. We find that the aggregate impacts are: (a) a 1.4% decrease in the marginal retail price; (b) a 4.8% decrease in the blended producer price; and (c) an overall increase in social welfare of 7.8%. Worth noting, the decrease in producer surplus varies from 0.7% in the western region to 1.5% in Ontario. Our results may be relevant to future negotiations as well as the publicly promised compensation package for dairy producers.     

Group concept mapping methodology: toward an epistemology of group conceptualization,complexity, and emergence

Quality & Quantity - Group concept mapping is a participatory mixed-methods approach to social and behavioral research that integrates qualitative group processes with multivariate statistical...     

Your Governance or Mine?

In response to criticism directed at the resource sector's corporate governance, this paper examines the corporate governance and underlying firm characteristics of resource development stage entities (DSEs) relative to a size‐matched sample of non‐resource firms. We find that resource DSEs have different governance characteristics in the measures of board independence, chair/CEO duality and CEO cash bonuses. Furthermore, there are differences in the information environment measures of analyst following, debt levels, stock market return and stock turnover. Considering we document substantial differences in underlying firm characteristics, corporate governance differences are likely appropriate to the mining industry and should not be uniformly labelled as ‘bad’. Our results suggest that media rankings based on corporate governance scores may not accurately portray the resource sector. Overall, our results are of interest to Australian investors and regulators and contribute to a broader understanding of contextually contingent corporate governance.     

Corporate stakeholders,corporate valuation and ESG

In addition to explicit contracts, corporations issue their stakeholders implicit claims, including fair treatment of employees and the promise of continuing service to customers. Corporate value is created by selling these implicit claims for more than it costs to honour them. Recently, a new class of non-investor stakeholders, related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, has arisen. Although many ESG advocates stress their role in creating shareholder value, they do not explain how this value creation occurs. This paper shows that implicit claims provide a critical link that ties non-investor stakeholders and ESG to shareholder value, both its creation and its possible destruction.     

Using Experimental and Neurological Data to Gain a Deeper Understanding of Realization Utility Theory

Starting with the premise that realization utility theory helps explain trading behavior, this study combines a carefully crafted experimental design with functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to offer a more inclusive examination of factors that affect REIT trading behavior beyond whether a REIT is simply trading up or down. We add to the nascent field of neurological real estate by finding that local gains/loss domains are more relevant than are global gain/loss considerations, financial skewness is a significant determinant of trading behavior, and that performance inside the REIT market influences how hard subjects think when performing tasks outside the market.     

Has Dodd–Frank affected bank expenses?

Journal of Regulatory Economics - This paper examines the potential effects of the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010 on banks’ noninterest expenses. Using data on U.S. bank holding companies from...     

Bear beta

We test whether bear market risk, time variation in the probability of future bear market states, is priced. We construct an Arrow–Debreu security that pays off in bear market states (AD Bear) from traded Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 index options and use its returns to measure bear market risk. We find that bear beta (exposure to bear market risk) has a strong relation with expected stock returns that is robust, persistent, and remains strong among liquid and large stocks. Historical bear beta also predicts future bear market risk exposure. We conclude that bear market risk is priced in the cross section of stock returns.