IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijefaa/v9y2017i5p143-155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial Market Evaluative Inefficiencies and Companies Sub-Optimal Investment Choices: How to Get Out of the Shortermist Impasse?

Author

Listed:
  • Bruna Ecchia

Abstract

This paper examines, in an innovative way as compared to the literature on the subject, ¡°whether, how and under what conditions¡± certain technical devices, such as so-called ¡°loyalty bonuses,¡± devised to increase the holding period of shares, can effectively reach their goal of countering the short-termist tendency involved in company investment decisions. This trend is an expression of compliance toward the current short-termism of the financial market as evidenced by the enormous shortening of the average share-holding period. This is not a recent phenomenon but it becomes more marked in times of crisis. Thus many projects, although functional to a company¡¯s competitiveness, are rejected simply because of their deferred profitability and therefore incompatibility with the short market horizon, more focused on results emerging from quarterly reports than on a company¡¯s long-term choices for business development. If the market is unable to immediately and adequately incorporate into prices the benefits from deferred returns, shareholders can equally obtain them if they remain durably connected with the company, but this choice must be encouraged by appropriate incentives. The loyalty bonus may be useful for this purpose and for long-term company interests, because it contributes to a better alignment of shareholders¡¯ expectations with a more long-term vision in investment strategy. However the bonus, rather than involving the minority shareholders in the enterprise¡¯s ¡°mission,¡± often degenerates into a Control Enhancing Mechanism, though with unusual effects, among which a situation of ¡°captivity¡± for all shareholders, even and especially the majority shareholders. In any case the utility of the bonus can occur, especially in less efficient markets. In a fully efficient market it could be harmful.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruna Ecchia, 2017. "Financial Market Evaluative Inefficiencies and Companies Sub-Optimal Investment Choices: How to Get Out of the Shortermist Impasse?," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 143-155, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:143-155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/67316/36818
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/67316
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edith Ginglinger & Jacques Hamon, 2012. "Ownership, control and market liquidity," Finance, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, vol. 33(2), pages 61-99.
    2. Michael S. Rashes, 2001. "Massively Confused Investors Making Conspicuously Ignorant Choices (MCI–MCIC)," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(5), pages 1911-1927, October.
    3. Hersh Shefrin, 2001. "Behavioral Corporate Finance," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 14(3), pages 113-126, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sereeparp Anantavrasilp & Abe de Jong & Douglas V. DeJong & Ulrich Hege, 2020. "Blockholder leverage and payout policy: Evidence from French holding companies," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1-2), pages 253-292, January.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    3. Ellina, Polina & Mascarenhas, Briance & Theodossiou, Panayiotis, 2020. "Clarifying managerial biases using a probabilistic framework," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    4. Nicolao Bonini & Stefania Pighin & Enrico Rettore & Lucia Savadori & Federico Schena & Sara Tonini & Paolo Tosi, 2019. "Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1443-1467, October.
    5. Wang, Xu & Deng, Shengliang & Alon, Ilan, 2021. "Women executives and financing pecking order of GEM-listed companies: Moderating roles of social capital and regional institutional environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 466-478.
    6. David Hirshleifer & Sonya S. Lim & Siew Hong Teoh, 2011. "Limited Investor Attention and Stock Market Misreactions to Accounting Information," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 35-73.
    7. Stefanescu, Razvan & Dumitriu, Ramona, 2015. "Conţinutul analizei seriilor de timp financiare [The Essentials of the Analysis of Financial Time Series]," MPRA Paper 67175, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Antonczyk, Ron Christian & Salzmann, Astrid Juliane, 2014. "Overconfidence and optimism: The effect of national culture on capital structure," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 132-151.
    9. Zeineb Barka & Taher Hamza, 2020. "The effect of large controlling shareholders on equity prices in France: monitoring or entrenchment?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 769-798, September.
    10. repec:pri:cepsud:91malkiel is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Wu, YiLin, 2010. "What's in a name? What leads a firm to change its name and what the new name foreshadows," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1344-1359, June.
    12. Malcolm Baker & Richard S. Ruback & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2004. "Behavioral Corporate Finance: A Survey," NBER Working Papers 10863, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Daniel, Kent & Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2002. "Investor psychology in capital markets: evidence and policy implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 139-209, January.
    14. Yang, Daecheon & Kim, Hyuntae, 2020. "Managerial overconfidence and manipulation of operating cash flow: Evidence from Korea✰," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    15. Marco Becht & Yuliya Kamisarenka & Anete Pajuste, 2018. "Loyalty Shares with Tenure Voting - a Coasian bargain? Evidence from the Loi Florange Experiment," Working Papers ECARES 2018-10, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Itzhak Ben-David & John R. Graham & Campbell R. Harvey, 2007. "Managerial Overconfidence and Corporate Policies," NBER Working Papers 13711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Sophie Moinas & Sébastien Pouget, 2016. "The bubble game: A classroom experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(4), pages 1402-1412, April.
    18. Mike Dempsey, 2014. "The Modigliani and Miller Propositions: The History of a Failed Foundation for Corporate Finance?," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 50(3), pages 279-295, September.
    19. Danso, Albert & Lartey, Theophilus & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Adomako, Samuel & Lu, Qinye & Uddin, Moshfique, 2019. "Market sentiment and firm investment decision-making," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Yiannis Karavias & Stella Spilioti & Elias Tzavalis, 2021. "Investor sentiment effects on share price deviations from their intrinsic values based on accounting fundamentals," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1593-1621, May.
    21. Staglianò, Raffaele & La Rocca, Maurizio & Gerace, Dionigi, 2018. "The impact of ownership concentration and analyst coverage on market liquidity: Comparative evidence from an auction and a specialist market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 203-214.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agency problem; control enhancing mechanism; corporate ownership; long-termism; loyalty bonus; market inefficiency; project selection;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:143-155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.