Cummins et al. (2006) construct a new measure of fundamentals, and show that the positive cash flow effects typically found in investment-Q models disappear when traditional Q is replaced with their new measure. Their results are not robust to small changes in their specification or in the dataset used to estimate their model. The explanatory power of cash flow does not disappear when replacing traditional Q with their new measure of Q; it is never there to begin with. Investment’s lack of sensitivity to cash flow may be because their data is biased towards firms with positive cash flow (it is negative for only 242 observations of 11431). This bias and our results mute their argument that the positive cash-flow effects obtained in such models may reflect a failure to control properly for fundamentals rather than the presence of financial constraints.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Article provided by Economics Bulletin in its journal Economics Bulletin.
Find related papers by JEL classification: E2 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomics: Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment D9 - Microeconomics - - Intertemporal Choice and Growth
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)