Why Are U.S. Stocks More Volatile?

U.S. stocks are more volatile than stocks of similar foreign firms. A firm's stock return volatility can be higher for reasons that contribute positively (good volatility) or negatively (bad volatility) to shareholder wealth and economic growth. We find that the volatility of U.S. firms is higher mostly because of good volatility. Specifically, stock volatility is higher in the United States because it increases with investor protection, stock market development, new patents, and firm‐level investment in R&D. Each of these factors is related to better growth opportunities for firms and better ability to take advantage of these opportunities.     

What do we know about consumers' ontological security in disaster scenarios?

While prior consumer studies have adopted various theoretical perspectives to explain individuals' reactions to disasters, scant attention has been paid to the role of ontological security in shaping those responses. This study attempts to fill this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring ontological security in two contexts: man-made and natural disasters. To this end, we conducted 35 focus groups in the UK, Germany, and France to address how people reacted to terrorist attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic respectively. Through thematic analysis, three themes emerged: fear versus anxiety, oneself versus others, and materialistic versus experiential purchases. Man-made disasters appear to elicit fear, concern for self, and a preference for materialistic purchases, whereas natural disasters seem to trigger anxiety, concern for others, and a preference for experiential purchases. Both types of disasters seem to evoke a desire to escape from reality. In closing, we discuss both transitory and prolonged threats to ontological security and how they shape individuals' behaviours while restoring their security.     

Carryover effects of advertising on sales of durable goods

In a landmark paper, Clarke [Clarke, D.G., J. Marketing Res. 13 (November 1976): 345–357] addressed the question of how long the carryover effect of advertising on sales persists. Appropriate cautions are included in the conclusions reached by Clarke since the preponderance of studies that he reviewed involved mature frequently purchased low-priced products. His conclusion is that, for such products, the carryover effect of advertising lasts a matter of months rather than years. The current study examines durable goods and provides preliminary evidence that for some durables, advertising effects may have a duration interval that exceeds a year.     

Smuggling and price disparity

This paper proposes a model of smuggling consistent with the coexistence of smuggling, legal trade and price disparity, defined as a domestic price which exceeds (is less than) the return from legal export (import). These phenomena have been found to characterize Indonesian smuggling. A framework is presented in which legal trade is used to cloak smuggling activity with the implication that the greater the volume of legal trade, the less the costs of smuggling. This model is then used to explain the observation noted above and to show that smuggling may be welfare increasing vis-à-vis the non-smuggling situation, and that even if the suppression of smuggling is costless, tax revenue maximization may require a positive level of smuggling. In addition, the model is applied to coffee and rubber exports from Indonesia.     

Of lessees,lessors, and discount rates and whether pigs have wings

Recent articles on leasing suggest five principles that should aid analysts to understand this durable, much misunderstood financial instrument. The principles are 1) the lessor must be happy too, 2) the operating inflows have nothing to do with the case, 3) financial, like physical, matter tends to be preserved, 4) debt is a function of after-tax flows, and 5) inability to use tax shelters cuts two ways. In this paper we illustrate these principles and use illustrations to demonstrate that each of these principles has merit. We argue as well that the impression, often left by the principles, that leasing seldom benefits all parties to the transaction is incorrect.