Non‐GAAP earnings disclosure post 2010 SEC regulation change

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 114-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa F. Henry ◽  
Rob R. Weitz ◽  
David A. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
Regulation Change ◽  
Sec Regulation

Cabotage and sulphur regulation change: cost effects to Northern Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olli Pekka Hilmola ◽  
Ain Kiisler ◽  
Per Hilletofth
Keyword(s):  
Northern Europe ◽  
Regulation Change

scholarly journals North European Export Industry and the Shadows of Sulphur Directive

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esa Hämäläinen ◽  
Olli-Pekka Hilmola ◽  
Andres Tolli
Keyword(s):  
Paper Industry ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Transportation Cost ◽  
Paper Mill ◽  
Export Industry ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Oil Markets ◽  
Regulation Change ◽  
European Export

Abstract EU Directive of MARPOL Annex VI and its economic impact on the Nordic paper industry is theme of this research work. Empirical data for analysis purposes was gained from a large Nordic paper mill that exports bulk products mainly to Europe (70 % of its volume). The study shows that in the end the industry’s location still has an economical effect, and that the location has a distinct impact on competition through rising transportation costs. Environmental regulation continues and fosters long-term upwards trajectory of transportation cost, which has been experienced by the paper mill earlier during years 2001-2009. Sulphur regulation change to cleaner grades of maritime diesel did not turn as heavy cost increase in the 2015, however, possibility to gain cost benefits in rapidly deteriorating oil markets were not reached either. Therefore, in depressed industrial product markets, like paper industry, implications were such that margins of export industry remained low.

Intraday analysis of regulation change in microstructure: evidence from an emerging market

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyup Kadioglu
Keyword(s):  
Trading Volume ◽  
Emerging Market ◽  
Lunch Break ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Call Auction ◽  
Regulation Change ◽  
Intraday Volatility ◽  
Continuous Trading ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Mixture Of Distribution Hypothesis

PurposeThis study investigates the impact of simultaneously replacing both midday single-price call auction and lunch break with multi-price continuous trading on intraday volatility–volume patterns as well as the intraday volatility–volume nexus.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis utilises 150 m tick-by-tick transaction data related to 333 stocks traded on Borsa Istanbul Equity Market covering a period of 2 months prior to and following the change. In addition to graphic comparisons, the study uses difference in mean tests, panel-fixed generalized least squares (GLS), panel-random GLS and random-effects linear models with AR(1) disturbance regression estimations.FindingsThe results show that intraday volatility and trading volume form an inverse J-shape and are positively correlated. It is observed that the implementation of the regulation change decreased intraday volatility and increased trading volume. Additionally, the results indicate a negative volatility–liquidity and a positive volume–liquidity relationship, supporting the mixture of distribution hypothesis.Research limitations/implicationsEnhanced market efficiency provides greater opportunity for investment and risk management. Investors can benefit from the findings on the intraday volatility–volume nexus, which is an indicator of informed trading, and regulatory authorities can use volume to oversight volatility.Originality/valueThis very rare regulation change of the simultaneous replacement of the lunch break and midday call auction with continuous trading is investigated in the context of intraday volume and volatility. This study also expands upon some important findings on the volume–volatility nexus for the Turkish Stock Market.

Pre-GFC Bank Behaviour Change and Basel Accords

2014 ◽  
pp. 35-56
Keyword(s):  
Financial Stability ◽  
Basel Ii ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Capital Regulation ◽  
Structured Finance ◽  
2008 Financial Crisis ◽  
Basel Accord ◽  
Financial Deregulation ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Regulation Change

A most important consequence of de-regulation change has been the transit of banks’ behaviour from acting as financial intermediaries to taking the role as brokers in the structured finance market. The combined effects of financial deregulation, rapid technological change, the evolution of the banking function, and the increasing complexity and diversity of finance activities has left regulatory bodies grappling with the problem of designing appropriate prudential standards. This has been the rationale behind the evolution of capital regulation from the pre-Basel regulation to the 1988 Basel Accord (Basel I); the 1996 Basel I amendment; and then to the new Basel Accord (Basel II). The major thrust of this chapter is to discern the most appropriate and effective regulatory regime for the purposes of achieving financial stability of the system. Accordingly, the occurrence of the recent 2007-2008 financial crisis is raised to offer a preliminary appraisal of the effectiveness of Basel II.

Cabotage and sulphur regulation change: cost effects to Northern Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 417
Author(s):  
Per Hilletofth ◽  
Olli Pekka Hilmola ◽  
Ain Kiisler
Keyword(s):  
Northern Europe ◽  
Regulation Change

Market effects of SEC regulation of short-term borrowing disclosure

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 529-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor C. Chamberlain ◽  
Abdul-Rahman Khokhar ◽  
Sudipto Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
Stock Returns ◽  
Event Study ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Firms ◽  
Announcement Date ◽  
Abnormal Stock Returns ◽  
Expected Benefits ◽  
Sec Regulation

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative approach to measure the cost-benefit tradeoff, by analyzing stockholders’ reactions to the announcement and vote on the proposed rule. More specifically, the authors use event study methodology to investigate the stock price reaction on two key dates; that is, the announcement date and the voting date of the proposed short-term borrowing disclosure regulation, and argue that positive abnormal stock returns indicate that the expected benefits of the regulation outweigh the compliance costs. A negative reaction would indicate that, in the eyes of investors, the costs of compliance exceed the expected benefits. Design/methodology/approach The authors use event study analysis and apply the market model to equal-weighted portfolios of 2,450 financial and 3,985 non-financial US firms to calculate mean cumulative abnormal stock returns (MCARs, hereafter) on the announcement and voting dates. Then, the authors conduct mean difference tests on firm-level MCARs across three event windows, that is, (−30,−1), (0,+1) and (+2,+30), to confirm if the MCARs of financial firms are different from those of non-financial firms on both the announcement and the voting dates. Finally, robustness tests are performed with alternate benchmark, using value-weighted portfolios, for the market. Findings The authors find that the market reaction is positive and significant at the announcement date and negative and significant at the voting date of the proposed regulation of short-term borrowing disclosure regulation. Overall, the paper documents a positive market reaction, indicating the usefulness of the disclosure from the vantage point of users. Examining and comparing the results for various subsets, including commercial banks and saving institutions, bank holding companies, size quartiles, and exchange listed and OTC registrants, the authors find that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to regulation is undesirable. Originality/value This is first empirical study, to best of the authors’ knowledge, to explore stockholder reaction to a proposed, rather than an enforced, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation and may contribute to the SEC’s final decision on the rule. Second, given a dissimilar reaction from investors of different firms, the results suggest that the SEC needs to reconsider its one-size-fit-all approach for the proposed rule. Finally, because the proposed disclosure would affect all SEC registrants, the economic implications of the findings are important not only for stockholders, but also for regulators, as they attempt to manage systematic risk and optimize the level of market intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document