The role of managerial risk‐taking in the ‘rise and fall’ of the CDS market

Since the innovation of credit default swaps (CDSs) in 1997, the market for CDSs grew dramatically to $62 trillion in 2007 (ISDA 2010). However, this market declined significantly with the onset of the GFC, prompting the question, ‘What lies behind the phenomenal growth and the eventual collapse of the CDS market?’ Using CDS spread data from 319 bank and non‐bank financial institutions across 33 countries over the period 2001–2010, I provide evidence of the determinants that affect risk‐taking by financial institutions, proxied by CDS spreads, and argue within an agency theoretical framework that managerial risk‐taking contributed to the ‘rise and fall’ of the CDS market.     

Effect of the ban on short selling on market prices and volatility

We examine the effects of the short‐selling ban, imposed by Australian regulators in the wake of the global financial crisis, on the trading of financial stocks. Our findings argue against commonly stated reasons for imposing short‐sale bans. We find no evidence that short‐sale restrictions provide support for stock prices or that they reduce volatility. Moreover, stocks subject to the short‐selling ban suffered a severe degradation in market quality. Controlling for the adverse effects of the financial crisis on markets, we show that short‐selling restrictions increase intraday volatility, reduce trading activity and increase bid–ask spreads.     

Does the bond‐stock earnings yield differential model predict equity market corrections better than high P/E models?

We extend the literature on crash prediction models in three main ways. First, we explicitly relate crash prediction measures and asset pricing models. Second, we present a statistical significance test for crash prediction models. Finally, we propose a definition and a measure of robustness for these models. We apply our statistical test and measure the robustness of selected model specifications of the Price‐Earnings (P/E) ratio and Bond Stock Earning Yield Differential (BSEYD) measures. This analysis shows that the BSEYD and P/E ratios, were statistically significant robust predictors of corrections on the US equity market over the period 1964 to 2014.     

Too big to fail: Measures,remedies, and consequences for efficiency and stability*

This paper evaluates whether reform efforts addressing “too big to fail” actually enhance the stability of the financial system, and whether trade‐offs exist between stability and efficiency. We also present and discuss various measures of bank size and complexity since such measures are essential for implementing appropriate corrective remedies. As we will show, there are no unambiguous measures of size or complexity that can fully capture a bank's contribution to systemic risk. Their effects on efficiency are also impossible to capture with certainty. While we recognize the need for additional research and empirical evidence, we do identify weaknesses and strengths of proposed and implemented reforms that could have consequences for bank stability and efficiency.     

Non‐profit vulnerability: An exploratory study

This mixed‐method study explores the symptoms and potential causes of non‐profit vulnerability within the Australian context. Following two focus groups with CEOs and Chairs of non‐profit organizations, an online survey was developed, pilot tested and distributed to non‐profit CEOs. Our findings suggest three symptoms that might be particularly useful in identifying non‐profit vulnerability: a substantial increase in unit costs/delivery hours; a substantial increase in the proportion of administration to program expenses; and a reduced ability to pursue the organization's mission. The results also suggest various potential causes of non‐profit vulnerability; in particular, Board inadequacies; External environmental threats; Project management issues; and Funding constraints.     

When Paradigms Meet: Interacting Perspectives on Evaluation in the Non‐Profit Sector

This study examines a public debate in Australia, arising from a national government report, around how social contribution in the nonprofit sector should be assessed. Guided by several meta‐perspectives on evaluation, we identify connections between foundational assumptions and normative positions on evaluation espoused by non‐profit organizations (NPOs), and examine the ways in which the inter‐paradigmatic context of the non‐profit sector contributes to the emergence of NPOs’ different normative positions on evaluation. We conclude that particular paradigmatic orientations of NPOs (positivism, interpretivism, constructivism) lead to particular perspectives on how NPOs should engage with alternative paradigms (monism, impartial pluralism, radical pluralism).