MIT Roundtable on Corporate Risk Management

Against the backdrop of financial crisis, a distinguished group of academics and practitioners discusses the contribution of financial management and innovation to corporate growth and value, along with the pitfalls and unintended consequences of such innovation. The main focus of most panelists is the importance of a capital structure and risk management approach that complement the strategy and operations of the business. Instructive examples are provided by Judy Lewent, former CFO and head of strategic planning at Merck, and Lakshmi Shyam‐Sunder, director of finance and risk management at the International Finance Corporation. But if these represent successful applications of finance theory, what about the large number of cases where the use of derivatives and other innovations has led to high leverage and apparent risk management failures? Part of the current trouble, as pointed out by Andrew Lo, can be attributed to the failure of risk managers and their models to account for highly improbable events—the so‐called fat tails of the distribution. But, as Robert Merton suggests in closing, there is a more comprehensive explanation for today's problems: the tendency of market participants to respond to potentially risk‐reducing financial innovation by increasing their risk‐taking in other areas. “What we have here,” says Merton,

相似文献   

FMA Roundtable on New Developments in European Corporate Governance

In this discussion that took place in Helsinki last June, three European financial economists and a leading authority on U.S. corporate governance consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of the world's two main corporate financing and governance systems: the Anglo‐American market‐based system, with its dispersed share ownership, lots of takeovers, and an otherwise vigorous market for corporate control; and the relationship‐based, or “main bank,” system associated with Japan, Germany, and continental Europe generally. The distinguishing features of the relationship‐based system are large controlling shareholders, including the main banks themselves, and few takeovers or other signs of a well‐functioning corporate control market. Given the steady increase in the globalization of business and international diversification by large institutional investors, the panelists were asked to address the question: can we expect one of these two systems to prevail over time, or will both systems continue to coexist, while seeking to adopt some of the most valuable aspects of the other? The consensus was that, in Germany as well as continental Europe, corporate financing and governance practices have already begun to look much like those in the U.S. and U.K., with much less reliance on bank loans and greater use of bonds and public equity. And these financing changes have resulted in major changes in ownership structures that have seen local main banks largely supplanted by foreign institutional investors—some of whom have demanded a greater voice in how companies are run. Moreover, Finnish economist Tom Berglund may well have provided a blueprint for the dominant European governance system of the future in describing the “Nordic model” as

相似文献   

Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable: Corporate Tax Reform

Corporate tax reform has been a controversial issue in the U.S. for several years, particularly as U.S. companies have accumulated cash in lower‐tax overseas subsidiaries, while some have used “inversions” to establish overseas corporate domiciles. Two features of U.S. corporate taxation stand out: 1. U.S. corporate income tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%; and, when combined with state taxes, it averages 39%, as compared to an OECD average of 24%. 2. U.S. corporations pay U.S. tax on their worldwide income, but can choose to avoid indefinitely corporate tax on foreign profits by not repatriating them. Neither feature is present in most other Western countries, where the norm is a “territorial” system that taxes companies only on their domestic profits. The Trump administration has proposed to cut U.S. corporate tax rates to 20%, thereby bringing them down to the OECD average, and to adopt a territorial tax regime like those found in most other Western nations. In this statement signed by 31 senior financial economists, the authors recommend cutting U.S. corporate tax rates, but retaining the current system of taxing the worldwide profits of U.S. companies (while giving them credit for taxes paid in overseas jurisdictions). Once U.S. rates drop to the international average, the economists point out, U.S. companies would have much less incentive under the worldwide system to use transfer pricing schemes to shift their profits to low‐tax jurisdictions than under the proposed territorial alternative. Indeed, under the current system, if the lower rates under consideration are enacted, the location of a company's business activity (including the firm's underlying intellectual property) would not affect its taxation. Along with lower corporate tax rates, the economists also recommend that Congress limit or remove the corporate option to defer the taxation of offshore profits and provide a schedule for repatriating off‐shore funds, using the inducement of the now lower rates as well as the possibility of a “tax holiday.”     

Capital Deployment Roundtable: A Discussion of Corporate Investment and Payout Policy

U.S. companies are now reportedly earning record‐high operating returns on capital while at the same time continuing to set new records both for corporate cash holdings and distributions to investors in the form of dividends and stock repurchases. But are most of these companies really maximizing value? And what role, if any, do these large distributions play in creating value? These are the two main questions that are addressed by a small group that includes two senior corporate executives and two representatives of well‐known activist investors. A number of panelists suggest that many companies, in misguided efforts to maximize returns on capital, have been using hurdle rates that are too high and so sacrificing value‐adding investment opportunities. As evidence for this claim, they cite evidence that, in recent years, the companies that have achieved the highest stock market returns appear to have made conscious decisions to reduce their returns on capital to pursue higher growth. Another increasingly common charge against U.S. companies is their tendency to pay out excessive capital to investors, especially in the form of stock repurchases at prices that turn out to be too high. But this last practice, however widespread, may not be as troubling as it has been made out to be. Although it involves a wealth transfer from existing to selling shareholders, overall investor value is lost only if such buybacks lead to corporate underinvestment. But, as a number of panelists (including the activist investors) point out, such payouts of capital have generally functioned as a demonstration of corporate managers' commitment to investing and operating with the optimal, or value‐maximizing, level of capital—neither too much nor too little.     

University of Rochester Roundtable on Corporate M&A and Shareholder Value

Robert Bruner's new book, Deals from Hell , serves as the point of departure for a wide-ranging discussion of the effect of mergers and acquisitions on shareholder value and the general economy. Despite the book's title, Bruner's message is at bottom a positive one: Corporate M&A increases efficiency and value, on average, and enriches the shareholders of not only the selling firms, but the buyers as well.
But if the average transaction is value-increasing for acquirers, many acquisitions of publicly traded companies by other public companies are value-destroying for the buyers, in large part because of "control rights" that U.S. laws and regulations have effectively conferred on target company managements. One proposed solution is a return to the legal and regulatory climate of the 1980s, a time when companies that reduced their own values by making bad acquisitions thereby raised the odds that they would become the next takeover targets.     

风险值度量与基金资产组合的风险分析

近二十年来,随着金融市场风险的加剧,以及金融数量分析技术、计算机技术的发展,金融经济学界和金融应用界都在发展和使用更新、更有效的风险管理工具和方法,以对付日益复杂化的金融风险.在风险管理革新的最前沿,发展最为迅猛、影响最广泛的一项新技术无疑是"风险值"(Value at Risk)方法.风险值有很简单的定义:"在某个置信度下以及在某个时间段内某个资产组合可能发生的损失的最大值".但是,它能够把整个机构的多种风险总结在一个数值中,而且对高级管理者来说,它归纳出了风险问题的焦点所在:"机构当前所持资产在未来可能发生的损失的最大值是多少",所以,风险值方法在金融业中得到了广泛的认同和应用.本文使用指数加权法(IGARCH),构造适应中国股票市场的资产组合风险值度量方法,在此基础上,我们计算基金资产组合的风险,并对各家基金资产组合的风险进行分析和评估.     

Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions

We examine client acceptance and client continuance decisions of a large audit firm to provide empirical evidence on the extent and nature of risk avoidance that the firm uses to purposefully manage its client portfolio. Our results support several key new inferences regarding audit firm portfolio management decisions. First, the results show that this firm is shedding the riskier clients in its portfolio, consistent with the risk avoidance theory of audit firm portfolio management. Second, the results show that the firm's newly accepted clients are less risky than its continuing clients. Although results of both the client continuance and client acceptance decisions imply a less risky portfolio emerging over time, there are greater differences in risk between continuing and discontinued clients than between continuing and newly accepted clients. Third, we find that audit risk factors are more important in audit firm portfolio management decisions than are financial risk factors. Finally, we find no evidence that audit pricing affects the client acceptance and continuance decisions of this firm, controlling for risk and other client characteristics.     

CARE/CEASA Roundtable on: Liquidity and Capital Management

Five distinguished banking and accounting scholars explore the role of liquidity at not only the “macro” level of the economy, but also at the level of individual companies. The first of the four main speakers, who is the author of the preceding article, restates his argument that the stability of financial systems can be increased by directing bank regulators and executives to find the optimal combination of liquidity and capital requirements. The second of the four speakers shifts the focus to liquidity management by non‐financial companies, with particular emphasis on their use of lines of credit and their role in helping companies weather the financial crisis. The third speaker places liquidity in the context of capital markets, and presents suggestive evidence that improvements in corporate disclosure and transparency have beneficial effects on both the level and volatility of liquidity in those markets. The panel is rounded out by a discussion of liquidity in corporate bond markets and the proposal of a new way to measure such liquidity.     

International Insurance Society Roundtable on Risk Management After the Crisis

In this roundtable, an adviser to several central banks and founding member of the Group of 30 discusses regulatory reform and corporate risk management strategies with senior executives from three of the world's largest insurance companies. Much of the discussion attempts to explain why insurance and reinsurance companies have proven less vulnerable to the crisis than commercial and investment banks. Part of the explanation has to do with their financial conservatism, which is attributed to a habitual tendency to decision‐making that gives heavy weight to long‐term probabilities and risks. But along with this “actuarial” cast of mind is a growing willingness to accept and make use of risk‐based capital requirements—a decision‐making framework that is, in some respects, in conflict with the accounting and regulatory capital conventions that still prevail in the industry. In particular, “Solvency II”—the risk‐based capital guidelines that are set for adoption in 2012 by insurers in the European Union—is held up as a possible model for global use.     

IRB法下公司敞口组合的风险驱动因子计量研究

巴塞尔银行监管委员会针对防范信贷组合信用风险所需要的资本制定的内部评级法,通过风险驱动因子的变化来反映组合回报的变化,并根据风险权重函数,通过风险加权资产转化为与每一项信用风险敞口更准确匹配的资本要求.本文对违约概率、违约损失率、违约敞口、期限因素以及违约相关性等信贷组合信用风险的风险驱动因子的度量进行了综合研究.     

Delegated Portfolio Management and Rational Prolonged Mispricing

This paper examines how information becomes reflected in prices when investment decisions are delegated to fund managers whose tenure may be shorter than the time it takes for their private information to become public. We consider a sequence of managers, where each subsequent manager inherits the portfolio of their predecessor. We show that the inherited portfolio distorts the subsequent manager's incentive to trade on long-term information. This allows erroneous past information to persist, causing mispricing similar to a bubble. We investigate the magnitude of the mispricing. In addition, we examine endogenous information quality. In some cases, information quality increases when the manager's expected tenure decreases.     

Financial Management Association Roundtable on Stock Market Pricing and Value‐Based Management

A group of academics and practitioners addresses a number of questions about the workings of the stock market and its implications for corporate decision‐making. The discussion begins by asking what the market wants from companies: Is it mainly just steady increases in earnings per share, which are then “capitalized” by the market at the current industry P/E multiple to produce a higher stock price? Or does the market pay attention to the “quality,” or sustainability, of earnings? And are there more revealing measures of annual corporate performance than GAAP earnings—measures that would provide investors with a better sense of companies' future cash‐generating capacity and returns on capital? The consensus was that although many investors respond uncritically to earnings numbers, the most sophisticated and influential investors consider far more than current earnings when pricing stocks. And although the stock market is far from omniscient, the heightened scrutiny of companies resulting from the growth of hedge funds, private equity, and investor activism of all kinds appears to be making the market “more efficient” in building information into stock prices. The second part of the discussion explored the implications of this view of the market pricing process for corporate strategy and the evaluation of major investment opportunities. For example, do acquisitions have to be “EPS‐accretive” to be value‐adding, or is there a more reliable means of assessing an investment's value added than pro forma EPS effects? Does the DCF valuation method always offer a better guide to value than the method of comparables used by many Wall Street dealmakers? And under what circumstances are the relatively new real options valuation approaches likely to provide a significant advantage over conventional methods? The main message offered to corporate practitioners is to avoid letting cosmetic accounting effects get in the way of value‐adding investment and operating decisions. As the corporate record on acquisitions makes painfully clear, there is no guarantee that an accretive deal will turn out to be value‐increasing (in fact, the odds are that it will not). As for choosing a valuation method, there appears to be a time and place for each of the major methods—comparables, DCF, and real options—and the key to success is understanding which method is best suited to the circumstances.     

一体化管理促金融市场业务新发展

随着人民币国际化步伐的不断加快,中资银行金融市场业务收入占银行收入的比重逐步提高。在金融市场业务交易量急速扩大的同时,一个整合、高效、风险控制能力强、自动化程度高的业务处理方式越来越至关重要。如何有效的从根本上实现跨资产组合的前、中、后台一体化处理,是许多银行和金融市场业务从业人员所关注的焦点。金融市场业务处理现状问题高效、风险可控、信息集中管理是银行业金融市场的未来发     

公司治理与财务治理

我国上市公司治理结构存在着先天性的制度缺陷, 表现在委托代理关系的严重失衡。在完善公司治理的过程中, 应逐步理顺财务报表审计关系和独立董事制度引入中的代理关系, 强化财务治理, 以促使上市公司持续健康的向前发展。     

Baylor University Roundtable on The Corporate Mission, CEO Pay, and Improving the Dialogue with Investors

A small group of academics and practitioners discusses four major controversies in the theory and practice of corporate finance:

• • What is the social purpose of the public corporation? Should corporate managements aim to maximize the profitability and value of their companies, or should they instead try to balance the interests of their shareholders against those of “stakeholder” groups, such as employees, customers, and local communities?
• • Should corporate executives consider ending the common practice of earnings guidance? Are there other ways of shifting the focus of the public dialogue between management and investors away from near-term earnings and toward longer-run corporate strategies, policies, and goals? And can companies influence the kinds of investors who buy their shares?
• • Are U.S. CEOs overpaid? What role have equity ownership and financial incentives played in the past performance of U.S. companies? And are there ways of improving the design of U.S. executive pay?
• • Can the principles of corporate governance and financial management at the core of the private equity model—notably, equity incentives, high leverage, and active participation by large investors—be used to increase the values of U.S. public companies?