Save the Buyback,Save Jobs

In response to a recent New York Times op‐ed by Senators Schumer and Sanders deploring the effects of stock buybacks on workers and the economy, the authors explain the role of buybacks in increasing corporate productivity and in recycling “excess capital” from mature companies with limited growth and employment opportunities to the next generation of Apples and Amazons. Some companies, as Schumer and Sanders charge, are guilty of repurchasing shares in the name of “shareholder value maximization” instead of pursuing job‐creating investments. But as the authors argue, well‐run companies increase shareholder value not by boosting EPS through buybacks, but mainly by earning competitive returns on capital and investing in their long‐run “earnings power.” And by paying out capital they have no productive uses for, such companies give their own shareholders the opportunity to reinvest in other companies with promising prospects for growth and jobs. But the authors go on to note the tendency of companies to buy back shares not when their stock prices are low, but instead when the companies are flush with cash and nearer the top than the bottom of the business cycle. The result of this tendency, as research by Fortuna Advisors (the authors' firm) shows, is that fully three quarters of companies doing large buybacks during the period 2013‐2017 failed to produce an adequate “Buyback ROI,” a metric developed by Fortuna that indicates management's effectiveness in “timing” its stock repurchases. Given the usefulness of buybacks in recycling capital, the authors conclude that the most reliable solution to the corporate short termism and underinvestment problem is for companies to adopt better financial performance measures—including Buyback ROI—to guide their capital allocation. And when management determines that it has significantly more capital than value‐adding investments, but wants to avoid committing to unsustainable dividend increases, it should consider buybacks—but only if management is convinced that its stock price has not outpaced performance.     

LIQUIDITY AND TICK SIZE: DOES DECIMALIZATION MATTER?

The effect of the move to decimalization by the Toronto Stock Exchange, where the minimum tick size was decreased to $0.05 from $0.125, is examined. Liquidity is measured by the price impact of unexpected volume. Results show an unambiguous gain to investors. Effective spreads decrease significantly, but the price impact is unaffected. In addition, evidence indicates an increase in trading activity in absolute terms as well in relation to U.S. exchanges for cross-listed stocks. This is consistent with the observed decrease in transaction costs.     

Too Much Monitoring, Not Enough Performance Pay

This paper endogenises the internal organisation of competitive firms in a simple general equilibrium framework. The options are monitored teams, unmonitored teams motivated by collective performance pay, and self-employment. The choice of incentive scheme depends on market price and also affects price through its influence on output. As more people opt for self employment, pecuniary externalities increase the pressure on the rest to follow suit and Pareto rankable multiple equilibria arise. The conditions for a competitive equilibrium to be constrained efficient are restrictive and everyone may gain from policies limiting monitoring and self employment and from the imposition of entry taxes.     

The moderating effects of gender and inside versus outside sales role in multifaceted job satisfaction

Two key trends in B2B sales organizations are increased representation by females in sales roles and a shift toward more inside sales positions than has been true in the past. Prior work on multifaceted job satisfaction among salespeople has not fully taken these elements into account. This study furthers the literature by examining the moderating role of gender and inside versus outside sales role on multifaceted job satisfaction. Results provide opportunity for provocative discussion among sales organizational leadership of more customized approaches to improve the satisfaction of the sales force.