Hedging,Financing and Investment Decisions: A Simultaneous Equations Framework

We empirically investigate the interactions among hedging, financing, and investment decisions. We argue that the way in which hedging affects a firm's financing and investing decisions differs for firms with different growth opportunities. We find that high growth firms increase their investment, but not leverage, by hedging. However, we also find that firms with few investment opportunities use derivatives to increase their leverage.     

RSS技术的应用和发展趋势探讨

RSS是以XML为基础,用于为内容整合客户端提供选择性的、汇总过的Web内容的技术规范。由于RSS具有简单、规范、通用、容易自动生成等特点,因此越来越多的网站也采用这种方式来发布最新信息。本论文先阐述RSS及其相关技术,接着提出RSS阅读器的一个具体实现,最后对RSS的发展趋势进行深一步的探讨。     

基于Panel—Data模型的山东省区域旅游问题研究

旅游业已被公认为“朝阳产业”、“无烟工业”，是集吃、住、行、游、购、娱为一体的综合性很强的产业，其光明的发展前景已为世人所公认。旅游业对其相关产业的牵动比例为1：4，可以充分带动地方经济的发展，发展潜力很大。本文运用了山东省17地市的国内旅游情况的合成数据，通过建立完整的计量模型，进行计量分析，进而发现各地市每增加一万人次的旅游者，对该地区的旅游经济的影响存在一定的差异，并且对于差异进行聚类分析，得出全省各地市的不同属类，为山东省日后旅游市场的更好发展提出了一些相应的建议。     

国库现金对货币供给政策的影响机制及证据:基于中国中央银行经理国库制度背景的研究

随着近年来国库现金的迅速增加,万亿国库现金波动对中央银行货币供给政策的影响日益突出。本文在中国中央银行经理国库的制度背景下,通过构建国库现金与货币供给的理论分析框架所做的研究表明,国库现金与基础货币、货币供应量都存在稳定的反向关系,国库现金的增减将导致基础货币和货币供应量的收缩和扩张。本文进一步以中国2000~2006年月度时间序列数据进行的经验分析显示,国库现金与各层次货币供应量之间存在长期的协整关系,国库现金是引起货币供应量变化的Granger因,国库现金的正向冲击导致货币供应量产生显著的负向反应,货币供应量由于国库现金增减而产生收缩和扩张效应。基于研究结论,本文根据当前中国具体情况提出了若干政策建议。     

The Wealth Effect of Domestic Joint Ventures: Evidence from Taiwan

This study presents important international evidence by examining the wealth effect of domestic joint ventures by Taiwanese firms. In opposite to United States evidence, we find that announcements of domestic joint ventures by Taiwanese firms are, on average, associated with significantly negative abnormal stock returns. We also find that the stock market response to announced domestic joint ventures is significantly positively related to the announcing firms' investment opportunities, size of investment and debt ratio, and is significantly negatively related to the business relatedness variable. In contrast, free cash flow, firm size, relative firm size and managerial ownership are found to have no significant power in explaining the market response. Our results support the investment opportunities, synergy and complementarity hypotheses as well as a broad interpretation of the free cash flow hypothesis, but reject the absolute size, relative size and alignment-of-interests hypotheses. This study makes valuable contributions to the literature by providing the first direct evidence on the role of investment opportunities, synergy and alignment-of-interests in explaining the wealth effect of domestic joint ventures     

BOOK REVIEW

Emerging Financial Markets, by David O. Beim and Charles W. Calomiris. McGraw‐Hill/Irwin, 2001, 364 pages, price $75.00.     

An empirical analysis of the relationship between the hedge ratio and hedging horizon: A simultaneous estimation of the short‐ and long‐run hedge ratios

This article analyzes the effects of the length of hedging horizon on the optimal hedge ratio and hedging effectiveness using 9 different hedging horizons and 25 different commodities. We discuss the concept of short‐ and long‐run hedge ratios and propose a technique to simultaneously estimate them. The empirical results indicate that the short‐run hedge ratios are significantly less than 1 and increase with the length of hedging horizon. We also find that hedging effectiveness increases with the length of hedging horizon. However, the long‐run hedge ratio is found to be close to the naïve hedge ratio of unity. This implies that, if the hedging horizon is long, then the naïve hedge ratio is close to the optimum hedge ratio. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 24:359–386, 2004     

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED,TAXES DRIVE THE JANUARY EFFECT

The multitude of explanations for the January effect leaves the reader confused about its primary cause(s): is it tax‐loss selling, window dressing, information, bid‐ask bounce, or a combination of these causes? The confusion arises, in part, because evidence has generally been presented in support of a particular hypothesis though the same evidence may be consistent with another hypothesis. Furthermore, prior work does not adequately control for the bid‐ask bounce. In this article we try to disentangle different explanations of the January effect and identify its primary cause. We find that tax‐related selling is the most important cause, overshadowing other explanations.