A firm's lifecycle consists of birth, growth, maturity and decline. We examine the strategies that firms choose when facing financial distress and present evidence that these choices are influenced by the corporate lifecycle. This influence is most pronounced in the choice of financial restructuring strategies such as reducing dividends or changing capital structure. We also examine if the way firms face financial distress affects the likelihood of recovery. We find that reducing investment and dividends are associated with recovery for all firms, but there is little influence of lifecycle.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to systematically profile investors' personality traits to examine if, and how, those traits are associated with phenomena observed in financial markets. In particular, the paper looks at overconfidence and overreaction in an experimental foreign exchange market. Design/methodology/approach -The paper measures the personality of the subjects using the short form of the NEO-PIR instrument, the NEO-FFI developed by Costa and McRae (1992) which is based on Norman's (1963) "Big Five" personality constructs of negative emotion, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. The paper measures psychological gender using questions developed by Bem (1994). Preference for innovation and risk-taking propensity are measured using instruments developed by Jackson (1976). The paper then examines the behavior of the subject who traded interactively in "real time" in an interactive-simulated foreign exchange market where "price discovery" was instantaneous and pricing decisions were made instantaneously as items of news, determined by the researchers, were released. Findings -The paper demonstrates that personality traits are associated with overconfidence and overreaction in financial markets. The paper presents meta-analysis which facilitates the development of a posteriori theories of how particular traits affect investment; there are important roles for risktaking propensity, negative emotion, extraversion, masculinity, preference for innovation and conscientiousness. Originality/value -A typical behavioral finance paper might find an empirical regularity in prices and, on the basis of such patterns, infer the underlying psychology motivating the behavior of investors. The approach differs from this caricature of the "typical" behavioral finance paper. The paper does not infer the underlying psychology of investors from patterns in prices. Rather, the paper learns about investors by systematically profiling their personality traits. The paper then demonstrates how those traits are associated with the prices generated by the investors the authors study. In focussing on the role of individual personality, the paper refocusses behavioral finance on the individuals who set prices.

No abstract

No abstract

Can Australian equity returns be modelled by 'home-grown' factors? We examine the indigenous capital asset pricing model, the indigenous Fama-French three-factor model, and extensions to the latter, and find them all wanting. We find evidence of domestic market segmentation in Australia. For the smallest firms, all the models we study fail. For the largest Australian firms, we find that the US Fama-French three factors (downloaded from French's website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/ ) provide a successful model of Australian returns. It is as if the largest firms in the Australian market are simply part of the larger US market. Copyright (c) The Authors Journal compilation (c) 2006 AFAANZ.

This study investigates the independent effects of environmental (E), social (S), corporate governance (G), and the composite ESG ratings on stock returns and corporate financing decisions of the largest stocks in the Australian equity market. Firms with high composite ESG ratings tend to increase their leverage. For the individual ratings, we find different inferences: firms with low E and high G ratings tend to raise less debt. Firms with high G ratings hold less cash, while those with low G ratings have lower dividend payouts. S ratings have no impact on corporate financing decisions. There appears to be no significant difference in risk‐adjusted returns for portfolios based on ESG ratings, effectively indicating that there is no cost of ESG investment.