Key Human Capital

Israelsen, Ryan D.; Yonker, Scott E.

doi:10.1017/s0022109016000880

Cited by 51 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not a given, since late RF disclosers might perceive a higher level of safe harbor protection as a "license to lie" (Senate Report 1995;Horwich 2010;Olazabal 2011). We first use the same DiD design and find that the information environment of the late RF disclosers improves after the 2005 RF mandate, compared to that of the early RF 7 Before the RF mandate, firms could choose not to provide risk factors for reasons such as proprietary costs (Verrecchia 1983;Ellis et al 2012;Hope et al 2016;Israelsen and Yonker 2017;Ernst and Young 2018), cost of capital concerns (Kravet and Muslu 2013;Campbell et al 2014;Filzen 2015;Heinle et al 2018;Beatty et al 2019), or preparation costs (Austin and Bernard 2016;Wachtell et al 2016;Gelfond et al 2018;McClane 2019). Section 2.1 provides a detailed discussion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a guide for preparing annual reports, Ernst & Young (2018) cautions clients to consider "the risk of significant competitive harm" when disclosing risk factors. Researchers find that firms with higher proprietary costs disclose less specific risk factors in general (Hope et al 2016), and that proprietary cost is an important determinant of whether firms disclose large customers (Ellis et al 2012) or key employees (Israelsen and Yonker 2017), which are common RF topics (Campbell et al 2014). Second, the disclosure of risk factors can increase the firm's risk as assessed by the market and thus the firm's cost of capital (Heinle et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2005, the SEC mandated that firms disclose risk factors to provide useful information about firm risk. An unintended effect of the mandate is that mandatory risk factor (RF) disclosure may constitute “meaningful cautionary language” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and may therefore provide legal protection for forward-looking statements (FLSs). Using both a difference-in-differences design and a two-stage least squares approach, we find that, following the mandate, firms that had not previously disclosed risk factors (late RF disclosers) became more willing to provide qualitative FLSs, particularly positive ones, than other firms. This finding is consistent with our prediction that, for late RF disclosers, the mandate reduces managers’ perceived litigation risk. We also find that these firms experience improvement in their information environment. A path analysis reveals that the mandate improves firms’ information environment not only directly but also indirectly by prompting more disclosure of positive FLSs, illustrating an unintended benefit of the 2005 RF mandate. Cross-sectional tests show that the RF mandate induces a larger increase in positive FLSs for firms whose managers perceive a higher level of benefit from safe harbor protection arising from meaningful cautionary statements.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the theoretical and practical perspectives, it is highly important to establish the relationships between human resources and human capital of an organisation -whether and thanks to what human resources can become human capital. A strategy of converting human capital into an organisation's capital takes various forms of long-term decisions, which focus on: adapting employment to changing conditions of the environment (Israelsen & Yonker, 2017), exerting an impact on the environment, organising expert groups around personnel units, rewarding for effective work and shaping the internal labour market (Król & Ludwiczyński, 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Capital as a Determinant of Strategic Human Resources Management in Public Administration on the Example of Poland

Dzieńdziora

Smolarek

2019

PMC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human capital refers to all the competences of employees. It is a resource of knowledge, skills and attitudes existing in every human being and society as a whole, which defines capability of work and adaptation to changes in the environment, and possibility of creating new solutions. The paper is theoretical and empirical in nature and presents the role of human capital in the implementation of personnel policy in an organisation. The aim of the paper is to present diagnosis of the level of human capital that contributes to the implementation of personnel policy of public administration on the example of integration and welfare institutions examined. Empirical part of the paper presents analysis of the survey results within selected aspects of human capital management in the institutions examined. Primary data collected during a quantitative study using questionnaire surveys, with a survey questionnaire as a research tool. The questionnaire was addressed to randomly selected employees of public administration organizations of the type integration and welfare institutions located in Silesian Voivodeship (Poland). Results of research: in the area of a strategy for human capital management there is a clear lack of a comprehensive approach which would enable a consistent use of modern tools for human capital management in this type of institutions. Keywords: human capital, human resources management, public administration.

show abstract

“…However, Collewaert () notes that larger teams also introduce higher coordination costs and contrasting incentives. Concentrated human capital can foster innovation but may also introduce key human capital risk that is particularly detrimental to young, small, and high‐growth firms (Israelsen and Yonker ).…”

Section: Angel Investor Decision‐making Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Angels or Sharks? The Role of Personal Characteristics in Angel Investment Decisions

Boulton¹,

Shohfi

Zhu

2018

Journal of Small Business Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use actual negotiations between angel investors and entrepreneurs to study the impact of personal characteristics on investment outcomes. We construct a unique data set with 707 investment requests led by 1,089 entrepreneurs and find that the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur, including gender, race, and age, are correlated with requested valuations, the likelihood that an offer is received, and the implied valuation when an angel investor extends an offer. Shared personal characteristics between entrepreneurs and investors also affect the likelihood that an investor makes an offer, the entrepreneur accepts an offer, and the implied valuation when an offer is extended.

show abstract

Key Human Capital

Cited by 51 publications

References 53 publications

The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005

The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005

Human Capital as a Determinant of Strategic Human Resources Management in Public Administration on the Example of Poland

Angels or Sharks? The Role of Personal Characteristics in Angel Investment Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About