The link between the cost of equity and reinsurance purchased by insurers is examined in this study. This work extends the research on the economic value implications of corporate risk management practices. Utilising a framework based on the theory of optimal capital structure, this study puts forward two hypotheses to test empirically the cost of equity – reinsurance relation in the United Kingdom’s non-life insurance market. The first hypothesis tests the effect of the decision to reinsure on the insurers’ cost of equity, whereas the second hypothesis focuses on the link between the extent of reinsurance purchased and the cost of equity. Panel data samples drawn from 469 non-life insurance companies conducting business in the UK insurance market between 1985 and 2010 are used to test these hypotheses. The study employs a modified version of the Rubinstein-Leland (R-L) model to estimate the cost of equity. Both the hypotheses put forward are supported by the empirical evidence obtained through regression analysis. The empirical results suggest that, on average, users of reinsurance have a lower cost of equity than their counterparts who do not reinsure. The results also suggest that the relationship between the cost of equity and the level of reinsurance purchased is non-linear. It is inferred from this result that reinsurance can lower the cost of equity for primary insurers provided the cost of reinsuring is lower than the reduction in frictional costs achieved through reinsurance. This finding validates the use of the theory of optimal capital structure as the appropriate framework to guide this research. Robustness and sensitivity tests confirm that the influence of multicollinearity and endogeneity on the estimates is negligible. This study thus provides new and important insights on the impact of reinsurance (risk management) on firm value through its influence on the cost of equity. These findings are deemed useful to various stakeholders in insurance companies, including investors, managers, regulators, credit rating agencies and policyholder-customers.

The economic utility of sustainability has been a recent domain under scrutiny by several academicians. More specifically, researchers have investigated the positive effects of sustainability reporting on firms from different angles. One of these angles is sustainability’s effect on firms’ prestige in the market, which is inevitably connected to market indicators, such as, risks and returns. Consequently, this research paper is positioned as a complement to previous researchers’ work within the field of sustainability reporting and its positive effects on firms. This paper’s foremost aspiration is to fill a knowledge gap in research by finding empirical evidence whether the first time assurance on sustainability reports causes a lower subsequent cost of equity capital. For this matter, the researchers’ methodology was deductive in nature, which relied on investigating established theories that are connected to the two dimensions of the research question; cost of equity capital and assurance on sustainability reports. This investigation formed the researchers’ theoretical schemata upon which they both neglected certain theories in favour of others and formed a verifiable theoretical research hypothesis. In this research, Sweden, a country known for its dedication for sustainability, was chosen as a market from which a sample was collected. The researchers conducted their study in a panel format where the same information about 44 different companies was collected on several years. Due to the fact that the number of listed firms that had been reporting their sustainability reports was quite moderate, a census study was convenient and applicable. The researchers ended up with a sample of 44 firms that constituted 352 observations, which formed the basis for the statistical inference. The empirical study employed several regression models of panels to reach the most representative model that fitted the data in hand. Also, to guarantee higher quality results the fitted model, the Two- way Error Component Fixed-effects Model, was tested for heteroskedasticity, cross- sectional correlation, autocorrelation and non-stationarity. This model revealed a relatively low explanatory power that drove the researchers to interpret their statistical findings with great caution. At a specific level of statistical significance, the regression model revealed a significant correlation between assurance on sustainability reports and a subsequent lower cost of equity capital. This result was refuted at higher levels of significance. Thus, the researchers were able to answer the research question affirmatively, to a certain extent, and to demonstrate that the research’s results verify the underpinnings of neo-institutional and signalling theories.

This thesis is dedicated to determination of cost of equity capital. The main objective is to evaluate whether the cost of equity may, in its calculations, vary depending on the size of a company. The means for achieving the results can be comparison of calculations of cost of equity by model with historical returns actually achieved. This is what many empirical studies are focused on. A partial goal of this paper is to analyze the results of selected studies and their mutual comparison. Relevant theoretical explanations will be also presented.

This dissertation investigates the relation between firm disclosure, analyst forecast bias, and the cost of equity capital (COEC). Since analyst forecast bias is associated with both implied COEC estimates and disclosure, it is important to control for or remove it from COEC estimates when estimating the relation between disclosure and ex ante expected returns. I begin my analysis by predicting and removing systematic ex ante bias from analyst forecasts to produce de-biased analyst forecasts that better proxy for the market’s ex ante earnings expectations. I use these de-biased analyst forecasts to produce estimates of ex ante expected returns, both at the portfolio- and the firm-level. In addition, I develop a novel estimate of ex ante expected returns by applying Vuolteenaho’s (2002) return decomposition framework to ex post realized returns and accounting data. Finally, using several techniques to control for analyst forecast bias and self-selection bias, I find theoretically consistent evidence of a negative association between regular disclosure and ex ante expected returns. I predict and show that inferences can change when analyst forecast bias is controlled for.

This dissertation investigates the relation between firm disclosure, analyst forecast bias, and the cost of equity capital (COEC). Since analyst forecast bias is associated with both implied COEC estimates and disclosure, it is important to control for or remove it from COEC estimates when estimating the relation between disclosure and ex ante expected returns. I begin my analysis by predicting and removing systematic ex ante bias from analyst forecasts to produce de-biased analyst forecasts that better proxy for the market’s ex ante earnings expectations. I use these de-biased analyst forecasts to produce estimates of ex ante expected returns, both at the portfolio- and the firm-level. In addition, I develop a novel estimate of ex ante expected returns by applying Vuolteenaho’s (2002) return decomposition framework to ex post realized returns and accounting data. Finally, using several techniques to control for analyst forecast bias and self-selection bias, I find theoretically consistent evidence of a negative association between regular disclosure and ex ante expected returns. I predict and show that inferences can change when analyst forecast bias is controlled for.

Economics Value Added has two major characteristics that differ from the traditional accounting measure. First, the process of counting EVA includes the cost of equity. Second, it corrects distortion of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles¡]GAAP¡^by equity equivalent reserves. The purpose of this study is to test the relationship between performance measure EVA and stock return. Furthermore, we investigate if conbining these two parts provides additional information. In addition, the difference between literature and the study is that we use not only OLS regression model but also Panel Data Model. We choose a more suitable model to analyze our sample data. Our main finding is as follows¡G 1. Since sample data involve cross-section and time-series data. The result of test is that the Fixed Effect Model of Panel Data Model is more suitable for sample data. 2. Base on the Fixed Effect Model, the relationship between EVA and stock return is positive. 3. Considering the cost of equity and equity equivalent reserves increases the R-square respectively by 2.408% and 1.915%. It doesn¡¦t increase much power to explain stock return apparently. However, by F test, we find these two independent variables are obviously explainable. In a word, base on the Fixed Effect Model, there is relationship between EVA and stock return. Moreover, the joining of the variables of the cost of equity and equity equivalent reserves can explain contemporaneous stock return a little more.

Baker and Wurgler (2002) proposed market timing theory and indicated the observed capital structures are the outcomes that managers timed the equity market and took advantages of timing when information asymmetry is low and stock price is high. But many scholars argue that Baker and Wurgler¡¦s timing proxy is noisy, this study attempts to use the concept of Huang and Ritter (2009) to test market timing effect on capital structure more directly by cost of equity. The cost of equity in this study is estimated by Fama and French three factors model with five-year rolling regression which is different from Huang and Ritter (2009). The empirical results show that publicly traded firms in Taiwan Stock Exchange from 1996 to 2007 tend to issue debt when the cost of equity is high and issue equity when the cost of equity is low which means the timing of financing behavior exists but it has no long-lasting effect on capital structure. Indicating that the observed capital structures of publicly traded firms in Taiwan Stock Exchange aren¡¦t the outcomes that managers timed the equity market which is not identical to the perspectives of Baker and Wurgler (2002) and the speed of adjustment of capital structure of publicly traded firms in Taiwan Stock Exchange is very fast.

This dissertation examines the effect of income smoothing on information uncertainty, stock returns, and cost of equity. Following existing literature, I construct two income smoothing measures - capturing income smoothing through both total accruals and discretionary accruals. I show that income smoothing tends to reduce firms' information uncertainty, as measured by stock return volatility, analyst forecast dispersion, and analyst forecast error. Further, I provide evidence that market prices income smoothing and rewards income smoothing firms with a premium. Controlling for unexpected earnings shocks and other firm characteristics, income smoothing firms have significantly higher abnormal returns around earnings announcement. Finally, I show that income smoothing, particularly through discretionary accruals, reduces firms' implied cost of equity.

The thesis deals with evaluation of company efficiency by economic value added method. An analysis of company efficiency is carried out through the use of EVA and partial indicators, that were obtained via its decomposition. Consequently, the results of this analysis are interpreted. Based on these results, special arrangements to improve the current situation of the company are suggested.

In this research, I classify all stocks into two groups: dividend and non-dividend payers and hypothesize that profitability premium may only exist among the firms with unforeseeable future cash flows, i.e., non-dividend payers. As expected, my empirical results support that profitability premium only exists among non-dividend payers but is very trivial among dividend payers. Dividends have a moderate effect on profitability premiums. To dig further into the source of profitability premium, I investigated risk and behavioral explanations from three perspectives: macroeconomics, industry, and total risks investors perceive for a firm. The evidence from empirical analysis supports that the profitability premium is mainly driven by the overpriced, unprofitable non-dividend payers, which, on average, have negative earnings announcement returns. In contrast, there is no significant positive or negative abnormal return from earnings announcements for portfolios sorted by profitability among dividend payers. Furthermore, the evidence from analyst forecast errors confirms that analysts are over-optimistic about unprofitable non-dividend-paying stocks and disagree more with their EPS forecast. Overall, the study finds that investors' expectation errors are the source of the profitability premium. It rejects the idea that risk is the profitability premium driver.