Business Portfolio Management For Business Trends

Determinants of expected return of Portfolio

Describe about the Business Portfolio Management for Business Trends.

The expected  returns from a portfolio tends to be determined by the beta factors contributed by each set of investment. The primary determinants in regards to portfolio returns tends to be degree of active asset allocation, the degree of efficiency, the degree of co efficiency pertaining to factor models, risk positioning both in terms of external and internal (Gharghori, Lee & Veeraraghavan, 2009). The active allocation with regards to non cash assets onto cash equivalents at the allocation levels, the degree of holding prime and subprime instruments into the portfolio elucidates high degree of influence upon the stock prices.

Hu (2016) stated the fact that the major portion of variance arising from portfolio returns tends to be determined by the degree of efficiency derived in the asset allocation decisions. Moreover, Beringer, Jonas & Kock, (2013) advocated that the policy decision tends to determine the variance pertaining to asset allocation. However, security selection differs in the aspect that random variation that tends to occur in regards to individual securities results towards higher degree of return variation as compared to that of assets allocation in between cash and cash equivalents such as bonds. Further, Klingebiel & Rammer (2014) mentions that the dispersion pertaining to average performance that results from security selection tends to be of greater quantum than that of assets allocation.  

The weak form of market hypothesis tends to showcase a level of market efficiency whereby considerable degree of information pertaining to the expected stock price are unable to be forecasted based upon the historical fluctuations in that particular stock value. On the other hand, the semi-strong market suggests that efficiency in terms of predictability and forecasting is not dependant upon the past financial data. This is owing to the assumption that the effect of historical events pertaining to the stock has been reflected in the past stock prices (Jarrow & Larsson, 2012). On the other hand strong form of market showcases a circumstance whereby the information asymmetry cannot have any degree of advantage as the market already tends to showcase the influence of past events.

Weak form of markets showcases a market situation where the stock prices have been dependant on past data thereby providing scope for financial manipulation through use of insider trading (Yalcin, 2016). Whereas, semi strong markets are those that are prevents additional returns by investors that are using published information pertaining to the stock in order to aggravate the degree of returns. However, on the other hand any form of information whether published or unpublished, does not facilitate any form of gains in a strong market form, thereby the risks pertaining to insider trading and information  asymmetry is negligible.

Distinction between selection and allocation in Portfolio Management

The CAPM suggests that the expected return pertaining to an asset that falls above risk-free rate is proportional to risks that are non-diversifiable in nature (Jensen & Ruback, 1983). The model stands on several inexplicit  assumption primary among them being i) absence of transaction costs and corporate taxes followed by unconstrained quantum of risk free rate credit facilities; ii) investors selecting portfolios with satisfactory degree of mean variance with single period horizon: iii) subjective expectations remains constant amongst the investors in terms of mean, variances and covariance regarding returns. Moreover, the quantum of non diversifiable risks are The subsequent research post the development of CAPM model suggests that the model fails towards explaining the size effect, book to market effect, leverage and illiquidity effects (Da, Guo & Jagannathan, 2012). Moreover, the anomalies arising from such effects are not explainable using the CAPM owing to its inherent nature. Further, CAPM fails substantially towards elucidating observed risk premium owing to the fact that empirical covariance tends to be ascertained using data from incomplete asset markets (Barberis, Greenwood, Jin & Shleifer, 2015) .  

This price theory postulates that the expected returns are related to loading of macro-economic factors or market betas in circumstances where there are no arbitrage opportunities facilitated by equilibrium prices.  The theory is developed on the premise of markets that tends to be frictionless and are primarily perfectly competitive (Franks & Mayer, 1996). The theory advocates that the relationship in the context of linear pricing is a primary condition to achieve equilibrium in markets where utility maximization persists amongst agents (Gharghori, Lee & Veeraraghavan, 2009). The theory intended towards mitigating the  shortcomings pertaining to CAPM, particularly through improving the computational framework for estimation of expected quantum of returns empirically. However, Dempsey (2013) states that in terms of computations pertaining to  expected returns, data that are in fact historical in nature tends to create risks from adverse forecasting.

According to Gharghori, Lee & Veeraraghavan (2009), the effects of the stock market have been investigated by taking into account the “size effect”, “book-to-market effect”, “earnings-to-price effect”, “leverage effect”, “liquidity effect” and “cash flow-to-price effect”. In addition, the ability of the Fama-French model has been critically evaluated to demonstrate the observed influences.

As per the view of the researchers, the anomalies do not depict the evidence of the market efficiency; however, it could suggest the misspecification of the “asset pricing model”. The proponents of the Fama-French model have argued that CAPM model does not possess all the specifications, which could be overcome with the help of the two additional factors of the Fama-French model. The researchers have evaluated this research has first happened on the US equity market, in which it has proved to be effective in contrast to the CAPM approach. The effects of the Fama-French factor are, however, different in the case of the Australian equity market. According to the R² square value, as found in the regression analysis, the amount of mispricing is significant, since the value varies from 50% – 60%.

Comparison between weak form, semi-strong form and strong form of market

The reason for such effect is that the Australian market is relatively smaller with smaller stocks. In addition, the researcher has taken a large sample size, which makes it infeasible for the Fama-French factor to test large number of the Australian portfolios. In this research, the researchers have selected smaller number of portfolios, in which the documentation of the size, B/M and E/P effect has been evaluated. The Australian firms have reported declining earnings cash inflows. However, the Fama-French model does not describe all effects due to consistent mispricing. Thus, it is not feasible in Australia.

The researchers have collected data related to price for the period 1992-2005 and data related to accounting for 1992-2004. The price data is comprised of the stock returns, market capitalisation, return on index and outstanding shares. The accounting data is composed of the intangibles and liabilities, operating cash inflows and net income. The smaller firms are chosen in the portfolio, as the previous researches have failed to examine the effects of the model due to inclusion of large Australia firms.

Gharghori, Lee & Veeraraghavan (2009) have observed that the Australian firms having high fundamentals of accounting in relation to price are highly valued. On the contrary, the Australian organisations having low fundamentals of accounting in relation to price do not possess much value. In addition, the researchers have also stated that in case of positive cash inflows, the big C/P and E/P stocks need to outperform the small E/P and C/P stocks. This implies that returns are higher in contrast to growth.

This research has been highly valuable, as the impact of both C//P and E/P has been depicted for the firms reporting negative earnings and cash inflows. However, the effects of liquidity or leverage could not be adjudged with the help of the Fama-French model. In addition the Fama-French model used on small number of portfolios with the help of regression analysis. The tests related to asset impairment depict that the Fama-French model does not possess the ability to describe the returns on the selected portfolios. Thus, this model could not be deemed as the most effective measure in analysing the effects of equity returns on the Australian firms.

According to Brailsford, Gaunt & O’Brien (2012), there are several factors, which need to be considered to describe the variations in equity returns despite systematic risks. This research has taken into account 98% of the ASX listed Australian organisations for a period of 25 years. The time-series framework and cross-sectional framework have been used in the article to evaluate the data in an effective manner. The data selected for this research include accounting information required for book value computation and the information associated with prices, dividends, market capitalisation and changes in capitalisation. The first data source is not available from the Australian firms. The other data are accumulated from the annual reports of the firms for the years 1982 – 2006. After the evaluation of data, the researchers have concluded that the impact of book-to-market is significant or the Australian organisations. In addition, the difference in returns is insignificant for larger portfolios. Lastly, it has been found that all pricing factors are significant and the exposures are positive for premiums.

Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

In the words of Chiah, Chai & Zhong (2015), the Five-Factor Fama-French model considers the entire market and the influential dynamics associated with the firm size, profitability, book-to-market and investments. This model has the potential to outperform the three-factor Fama-French model to dissect the influence of the equity returns on the Australian organisations. In this research, relatively larger sample size is chosen from the Australian equity market for the year 1982 – 2013. The prior research has been conducted for a period of 12 years. The motive of the researchers is to examine the performance of the Australian equities in terms of pricing with the help of the five-factor model. The regression analysis and Anova testing have been made to analyse the influence of the market and pricing anomalies on the selected equities. In addition, it has also been found that the “book-to-market” factor remains with the explanatory power based on the profitability and investment factors.

As per the view of Shi et al., (2013), the “technology-based asset pricing model” has higher relevance in contrast to the Fama-French three-factor model. The purpose of this research is to investigate an association between the above-mentioned mode and stock returns in the Australian market. The methods of checks related to robustness and two-step GMM and Cochrane’s regression have been used in the study to evaluate the data accumulated from 25 portfolios. It has been found that the factor associated with technology helps in asset related to price by enhancing the description of the cross-sectional deviation of share returns. This is because this model takes into account the systematic risk arising out of technology with diversifying sensitivity to explain the stock returns. The researchers have inferred that the technology model has significant influence on the Australian equities. 

Ahern (2011) suggests that substantial quantum of mergers and takeover, over a quarter of all mergers, tends to provide greater financial gains as compared to their targets. Thereby, the acquirers are induced by the coupling of improvement of returns in longer term with the immediate gains post mergers. Li (2013) advocated that takeovers tends to reduce the quantum of capital expenditure, employment incentives along with the labor rates and while keeping the output levels at par with that of pre-acquisition period. Further, the authors  also suggested that the offer premium pertaining to acquisition is reflective of the size of the target and not upon the productivity. Thereby in an takeover, the acquirer tends to focus largely upon retaining the same degree of productivity at lower costs leading to an overall improvement in revenue generating ability. Morellec & Zhdanov (2005) states the fact that the mergers are primarily undertaken in order to facilitate financial synergies resulting towards a streamlined sets of knowledge transfers along with the synthesizing different levels of operations in order to improve the productivity. Yalcin (2016) mentions the fact that the mergers and takeover are  intended in instances where the acquirer entity faces shortcomings in terms of fulfilling the degree of operational efficiency that can achieved through present degree of managerial skills that the acquirer company possesses. Moreover, another motive pertaining to mergers and takeovers comes from the premise of asymmetric information pertaining to the valuation of target company. For instance, the actual value of the company in terms of potentiality may have been better gauged by the acquirer company than by the rest of the market.

Arbitrage Price Theory

Abstract

The essay will consider the journals namely “The market for corporate control” and “Director Networks and Takeovers” and evaluate whether takeovers of the companies enhance target value or the bidder organization as well as combining the market value. The evaluation of the journal revealed the fact that effectively connected organizations are highly active bidders. This is for the reason when a bidder along with a target has more than one director in common, the takeover transactions profitability will be effectively completed arguments and the negotiation period is shorter. It was clarified from the journal that companies with more than one common directors have increased merging probability and the companies with increased centrality measures appears to be highly active acquirers.

Introduction

A corporate takeover can be deemed to have a significant impact on an organization’s growth prospects and prolonged outlook (Wang, 2015). When a buyer takes over any target organization, it might use shares of the company’s stocks to finance the deal along with employing debt or cash. The gains generated by the business takeovers do not seem to generate from the market power development. Along with exceptions of actions, those do not consider potential bidders; it is complex to reveal managerial actions linked with business control that has adverse impact on shareholders. The objective of the essay is to consider the journals namely “The market for corporate control” and “Director Networks and Takeovers” and evaluate whether takeovers of the companies enhance target value or the bidder organization as well as combining the market value.

Evaluation of journal “The Market for Corporate Control” revealed that several controversial concerns related with the corporate control market has not been settled and several issues were needed to be considered in the study. It is evident from the journal that it is not likely that any transactions set have been studied in details that seems to depict business takeovers produce positive gains that the shareholders of the target organization benefit and that the shareholders of the bidding organizations does not loose (Jensen & Ruback, 1983). The values generated from the business takeovers do not seem too appear firm the market power generation. Additionally, it is complex to discover managerial conducts linked with business control that adversely affect stockholders. The journal also made it clear that the exceptions appear to be such actions that decrease a real or potential bidder, for instance, by the implementation of targeted huge block repurchases or agreements those retain standstill (Auerbach, 2013).

Patterns/ effects on the equity returns

The evidence gathered from the journal indicated that targets of the successful tender decisions and mergers gather considerably positive abnormal gains on offer announcements and by the failure realization (Palia, 2016). Moreover, such targets of unsuccessful tender decisions those do not gain further offers within next two years lose all the gains from prior announcements and such targets that do not gain fresh offers obtain further higher returns. At last, targets related with the successful mergers seem to lose all the sensitive gains earned within the period of offer announcement at the time the offer failure becomes known. Moreover, the journal revealed that the gains generated by the business takeovers do not come from the generation of power of market (Macias & Pirinsky, 2015). It was also revealed that it is complex to reveal managerial actions linked to business control that impact stockholders, the exceptions are the actions those decreases a potential or real bidder.

The journal clarified that the imposition of regulations on security that governs takeovers seems to decrease the takeover’s profitability. The impact of such changes in tender provides regulations on the irregular returns to the bidding as well as target companies. It was gathered that through increasing the cost of transaction and imposing takeover restrictions, such regulations might simply truncate the takeover distribution that might actually take place. Such truncation is not that profitable takeovers that might decrease returns to company’s shareholders that does not turn out to be targets and have less impact on returns to those that turn out to be targets. However, this might enhance the measured average abnormal gains for targets of finished takeovers.

From the analysis of the journal “Director Networks and Takeovers” it is gathered that the journal focused on analyzing the associations of the bidder and target companies impact on several aspects of mergers and acquisitions within UK (Renneboog & Zhao, 2014). Within the network context, the journal revealed that the takeover frequency, process of merger and acquisition that includes the negotiation and success in contrast to failure at the negotiation process end, payment means including all-cash and all-equity along with mixed offers and the retention or directors attraction towards the target company on board of merged organization. Moreover, whether there is any difference in aspect of abnormal returns before the announcement of connected as well as non-connected M&A (Goergen & Renneboog, 2014).

The evaluation of the journal revealed the fact that effectively connected organizations are highly active bidders. This is for the reason when a bidder along with a target has more than one director in common, the takeover transactions profitability will be effectively completed arguments and the negotiation period is shorter. Moreover, targets those are connected in a frequent way accept offers that include equity (Berezinets, et al., 2016). The target company’s directors have increased occasion to be invited in the board of merged company within connected merger and acquisition. At the time connections have a huge impact on takeover process and strategy, the journal did not offer much evidence regarding whether market acknowledges connections among targets and bidders as the return announcements does not remain statistically distinct from these targets and bidders.

Effects observed in the Australian market

It was clarified from the journal that companies with more than one common directors have increased merging probability and the companies with increased centrality measures appears to be highly active acquirers (Wang, 2015). Moreover, negations taking place between connected organizations are shorter and are completed successfully and bidders those connected frequently make offers in equity.

Conclusion

The objective of the essay was to consider the journals namely “The market for corporate control” and “Director Networks and Takeovers” and evaluate whether takeovers of the companies enhance target value or the bidder organization as well as combining the market value. From the discussion provided in the essay, it was gathered that the gains generated by the business takeovers does not seem to generate from the market power development. Moreover, along with exceptions of actions, those do not consider potential bidders; it is complex to reveal managerial actions linked with business control that has adverse impact on shareholders.

References and Bibliography:

Ahern, K. R. (2012). Bargaining power and industry dependence in mergers.Journal of Financial Economics, 103(3), 530-550.

Auerbach, A.J. ed., 2013. Corporate takeovers: Causes and consequences. University of Chicago Press.

Barberis, N., Greenwood, R., Jin, L., & Shleifer, A. (2015). X-CAPM: An extrapolative capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics,115(1), 1-24.

Berezinets, I., Garanina, T., & Ilina, Y. (2016). Intellectual capital of a board of directors and its elements: introduction to the concepts. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4).

Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 830-846.

Brailsford, T., Gaunt, C., & O’Brien, M. A. (2012). Size and book-to-market factors in Australia. Australian Journal of Management, 0312896211423555.

Chiah, M., Chai, D., & Zhong, A. (2015). A better model? An empirical investigation of the Fama-French five-factor model in Australia. In 2015 Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference.

Da, Z., Guo, R. J., & Jagannathan, R. (2012). CAPM for estimating the cost of equity capital: Interpreting the empirical evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(1), 204-220.

Dempsey, M. (2013). The capital asset pricing model (CAPM): the history of a failed revolutionary idea in finance?. Abacus, 49(S1), 7-23.

Deng, X., Kang, J. K., & Low, B. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), 87-109.

Franks, J., & Mayer, C. (1996). Hostile takeovers and the correction of managerial failure. Journal of Financial Economics, 40(1), 163-181.

Geambasu, C., Jianu, I., Herteliu, C., & Geambasu, L. (2014). Macroeconomic Influence on Shares’ Return. Study case: Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) Applied on Bucharest Stock Exchange. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 48(2), 133-150.

Gharghori, P., Lee, R. & Veeraraghavan, M. (2009). Anomalies and stock returns: Australian evidence. Accounting & Finance, 49(3), pp.555-576.

Gharghori, P., Lee, R., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2009). Anomalies and stock returns: Australian evidence. Accounting & Finance, 49(3), 555-576.

Goergen, M., & Renneboog, L. (2014). Inside the board room. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 1-5.

Hu, W. (2016). Calibration of multivariate generalized hyperbolic distributions using the EM algorithm, with applications in risk management, portfolio optimization and portfolio credit risk.

Jarrow, R. A., & Larsson, M. (2012). The meaning of market efficiency.Mathematical Finance, 22(1), 1-30.  

Jensen & Ruback (1983). The Market for Corporate Control. Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 5-50.

Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. (1983). The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial economics, 11(1), 5-50.

Klingebiel, R., & Rammer, C. (2014). Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 246-268.

Li, X. (2013). Productivity, restructuring, and the gains from takeovers.Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 250-271.

Macias, A., & Pirinsky, C. (2015). Employees and the market for corporate control. Journal of Corporate Finance, 31, 33-53.

Morellec, E., & Zhdanov, A. (2005). The dynamics of mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 649-672.

Palia, D. (2016). The market for corporate control: survey of the empirical evidence, estimation issues, and potential areas for future research. Research Handbook on Mergers and Acquisitions, 66.

Renneboog, L. & Zhao, Y. (2014). Director Networks and Takeovers. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28(6), 218-234.

Schmidt, B. (2015). Costs and benefits of friendly boards during mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(2), 424-447.

Shi, J., Darrat, A. F., Li, B., & Chung, R. Y. M. (2013). Technology Prospect and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns: Evidence from the Australian Market. Corporate Ownership and Control, 11(1), 295-303.

Wang, Z. (2015). The Role of the Director Social Networks in Spreading Misconduct: The Case of Reverse Mergers. Available at SSRN 2656000.

Yalcin, K. C. (2016). Market rationality: Efficient market hypothesis versus market anomalies. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 3(2), 23-38.