No abstract

Recent studies suggest that momentum returns are conditioned by market states, but we find that China is different. First, we find that momentum returns in China exclusively follow DOWN markets contrary to the U.S. evidence. Second, the absence of momentum returns following UP markets in China cannot be explained by market dynamics, unlike in the U.S. Third, momentum returns in China are higher when the market continues in the same state than when it transitions to the other state as in the U.S. but this is true in China only following DOWN states.

PurposeThe authors empirically examine the impact of the stand-alone risk committee on corporate risk-taking and firm value.Design/methodology/approachThe authors argue that the existence of a stand-alone risk committee enhances the quality of corporate governance, which reduces corporate risk-taking and strengthens the firm value that might improve investor protection.FindingsThe authors find corporate risk-taking decline significantly for firms that have a stand-alone risk committee compared with firms that have a joint audit and risk committee. The authors also find that the presence of a stand-alone risk committee is positively associated with firm value.Practical implicationsThe evidence is consistent with the proposition that firms with a stand-alone risk committee can effectively evaluate potential risks and implement a proper risk management system.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that investigates the association between the existence of a stand-alone risk committee and firm risk-taking in a multi-industry setting. Also, our research extends the association between a stand-alone risk committee and firm value.

Recent evidence on the relationship between investor sentiment and subsequent monthly market returns in China shows that investor sentiment is a reliable momentum predictor since an increase (decrease) in investor sentiment leads to higher (lower) future returns. However, we suggest that momentum predictability of investor sentiment originates from the boom and bust period of 2006–2008 (the bubble period hereafter). The bubble period is characterized by several months of sustained optimism followed by several months of sustained pessimism, with the market consequently earning high (low) returns following high (low) sentiment months. Therefore, we find a strong positive association between investor sentiment and subsequent market returns during the bubble period. However, investor sentiment has a negligible impact on subsequent monthly market returns once we exclude the bubble period.

No abstract