This paper investigates the extent of nonstationarity of beta across the firm size and the beta magnitude by suggesting the
sequential parameter stationarity model and estimating change-points of betas. The high-beta firm has shorter stationary interval,
which means that its beta changes more frequently than do the low-beta firm's. The firm size, however, does not have a monotonic
relation with the length of stationary interval. The small and large firms have relatively shorter stationary interval than
do the mid-sized firms. The average length of stationary interval is estimated about five years (exactly 54.19 months). This
fact could support the currently widely-used arbitrary 5-year assumption of beta stationarity. The fluctuation of the large
firm's beta is more severe than the small firm's, and the high- and low-beta firms have the relatively greater fluctuating
betas than do the mid-beta firms. The frequency of detected change-points is found to be positively related to market returns.
When the market return is high, the systematic risk changes more frequently, and vice versa. 相似文献
This paper examines three important issues related to the relationship between stock returns and volatility. First, are Duffee's (1995) findings of the relationship between individual stock returns and volatility valid at the portfolio level? Second, is there a seasonality of the market return volatility? Lastly, do size portfolio returns react symmetrically to the market volatility during business cycles? We find that the market volatility exhibits strong autocorrelation and small size portfolio returns exhibit seasonality. However, this phenomenon is not present in large size portfolios. For the entire sample period of 1962–1995, the highest average monthly volatility occurred in October, followed by November, and then January. Examining the two sub-sample periods, we find that the average market volatility increases by 15.4% in the second sample period of 1980–1995 compared to the first sample period of 1962–1979. During the contraction period, the average market volatility is 60.9% higher than that during the expansion period. Using a binary regression model, we find that size portfolio returns react asymmetrically with the market volatility during business cycles. This paper documents a strongly negative contemporaneous relationship between the size portfolio returns and the market volatility that is consistent with the previous findings at the aggregate level, but is inconsistent with the findings at the individual firm level. In contrast with the previous findings, however, we find an ambiguous relationship between the percentage change in the market volatility and the contemporaneous stock portfolio returns. This ambiguity is attributed to strongly negative contemporaneous and one-month ahead relationships between the market volatility and portfolio returns.
Low birth rates, longevity, family disintegration, and other factors have reduced the size of the average household. At the same time household size is shrinking, new housing offers twice the floor space per occupant of old housing. Small households are inefficient users of space, utilities, furniture, and equipment. As these factors converge, the result is over consumption of durables and vast stockpiles of possessions just awaiting disposal when the baby boom generation passes on. The rightful heirs to these possessions are themselves accumulators, and will most likely have little use for what is left to them. What does the future hold for consumption, savings, and demand for housing? Booming flea markets, bigger homes as warehouses, a decline in consumption, or an epidemic of display and collection? Public policies have limited leverage on private behavior. 相似文献
Despite an increasing number of hospitality studies on the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate financial performance (CFP), the literature has predominantly focused on the CSR–CFP relation without considering moderating factors. Consequently, the current study introduces firm size as a potential moderator on the CSR–CFP relationship. Performing a two-way fixed-effects model by firm and year with Newey-West standard errors, this study finds that firm size moderates the effect of positive CSR on CFP while it does not moderate the effect of negative CSR on CFP in the U.S. restaurant context. 相似文献
Models of firm microstructure are becoming now a standard building block in macroeconomics, trade, and development. This literature builds on the recognition that firm heterogeneity and the allocation of resources across firms plays a key role in determining aggregate productivity and the gains from trade. Barriers to the efficient allocation of resources across firms have been recently recognized to play a key role in economic development. This paper focuses on this methodological contribution, the link between firm microstructure and economic aggregates. 相似文献
We present an analytical model of an organization that offers operational drivers of limits on team size. The model trades off benefits from collaborative problem solving against the disadvantages of diminishing motivation when groups get large. Collaboration is represented as parallel employee activity combined with frequent sharing of partial information, with a resulting superlinear performance increase over team size. Motivation is modeled by team members periodically setting an effort level either to contribute to the best of their ability or to “cruise”; at the minimum level not recognizable as shirking. Each individual decision is limited by bounded rationality based on team rewards, the time horizon of team interaction, and individual expectations about colleagues’ behavior. The decision collapses to a simple “barrier rule”;. Work hard when a certain “barrier percentage”; of team members work hard, and otherwise shirk. The influence of team size on this barrier percentage depends on the extent of benefits from collaboration: As long as performance increases quadratically with team size, the increased benefits resulting from collaboration exactly balance the temptation to shirk, with the barrier percentage approaching a fixed limit for large team sizes. As soon as the performance increase slows to anything less than quadratic, shirking eventually sets in and limits the possible size of the team. This implies that cooperation is sustainable in large organizational units, provided the problem‐solving processes used are powerful enough to ensure sufficient performance increases. Thus, effective problem‐solving methods are of double value, improving direct productivity and mitigating the social dilemma from team production. A manager should enlarge his or her organization up to the minimum of the limit set by the cooperation barrier and the exogenous performance limit. 相似文献