Suchergebnisse

Purpose. The main objective of the paper is to determine the critical factors, which have an impact on the long-term value maximization for company's shareholders. Methodology. Content analysis of the text segments related to the issues of shareholder value creation is performed. Information data basis consists of 100 abstracts of the published scientific papers from Scopus, EBSCO, Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge and other databases. Publishing period covers 40 years (1972-2012). The relevant abstracts for the research purposes were selected based on the criterion of mentioning the notions of shareholder value creation, shareholder value maximization, shareholder value sustainability and similar word combinations. Information processing is performed by the means of text analysis software AQUAD 6.0 and Hamlet II. Both differentiation and generalization strategies were used when interpreting the data. Results. Frequency tables generated by AQUAD and cluster analysis provided by Hamlet assisted authors to elicit critical factors stimulating value creation process in companies. Authors' performed analysis revealed that sustainable shareholder value is based on the long-term and stable income stream, and its creation primarily is stipulated by properly implemented corporate governance system, high CSR standards, rational capital budgeting politics and high financial results accountability. Practical implications (if applicable). Value drivers' awareness allows reduction of risks associated with the value creation process and, as a consequence, maximizing return on the invested capital. Considering the factors affecting shareholder wealth it is possible to increase investment attractiveness of a company for existing and potential strategic and retail investors. The distilled factors are planned to be used as variables in a regression model for predicting shareholders' return. Value/originality. The current research expands the horizon of understanding the concept of shareholder value in a sustainable perspective. While the traditional view of shareholder value usually contradicts with the ideas of stakeholder theory proponents, the proposed model combines the elements of both theories and the elements of the sustainable development concept.

This article aims to qualify the skeptical view of many leading methodologists on multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis (mvQCA). More specifically, it draws attention to a distinctive strength of this QCA-variant. In contrast to the other QCA-variants, mvQCA is capable of straightforwardly capturing the specific causal role of every category of a multi-value condition. This provides it with an important advantage over both crisp set (csQCA) and fuzzy set QCA (fsQCA). fsQCA is not capable of capturing the causal effect of an intermediate category if, depending on the context, it can have a different impact than the full presence of the corresponding condition. csQCA, in turn, tends to attribute a causal role to the absence of condition values, which in the case of multi-value conditions often encompass very different cases. The article first discusses the comparative advantage of mvQCA with a constructed data set, after which it reanalyzes two published studies to demonstrate these advantages with empirical data. (author's abstract)

The issues related to the shareholder value maximization have been frequently debated in the academic literature in the last three decades. However, different authors emphasize different types of value drivers. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to detect the most important factors affecting the value creation process in companies. Content analysis of the relevant discourse from Scopus, EBSCO, Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge and other databases was performed to achieve the established objective. Frequency tables generated by AQUAD 6.0 and cluster analysis provided by Hamlet II 3.0 assisted the authors in obtaining critical factors stimulating value creation process in companies. The analysis performed by the authors revealed that the sustainable shareholder value is based on the long-term and stable economic performance, accompanied by the properly implemented corporate governance system, high CSR standards, rational capital budgeting politics and high financial results accountability. Considering the factors affecting shareholder wealth, it is possible to increase investment attractiveness of a company for the existing and potential strategic and retail investors. Besides, the distilled factors can be used for predicting shareholders' return. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.19.2.3601

The paper analyses economic evaluations by distinguishing evaluative statements from actual value judgments. From this basis, it compares four solutions to the value neutrality problem in economics. After rebutting the strong theses about neutrality (normative economics is illegitimate) and non‐neutrality (the social sciences are value‐impregnated), the paper settles the case between the weak neutrality thesis (common in welfare economics) and a novel, weak non‐neutrality thesis that extends the realm of normative economics more widely than the other weak thesis does.

AbstractManuscript TypePerspectiveResearch Question/IssueCan maximizing shareholder value maximize social value?Research Findings/InsightsIf good corporate governance is defined as maximizing a firm's contribution to overall social welfare, shareholder valuation maximization can achieve this only if capital markets are functionally efficient, a concept quite distinct from the definitions of market efficiency usually found in finance textbooks. Functional efficient capital markets allocate capital to its highest value uses subject to achieving tolerable success toward other social goals, such as equality or environmental standards.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsPressing top managers to maximize shareholder valuation is of questionable social value if share prices are either informationally inefficient (noisy) or informationally efficient but functionally inefficient (share prices faithfully reflect fundamental values, which depend on political lobbying, gaming complex regulations, etc., more than genuine productivity growth).Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsShareholder valuation, if surrounded by institutions that foster functional efficiency, is a readily observable, legally useful, and socially defensible barometer of corporate governance. The efficacy of corporate governance institutions associated with shareholder value thus depends on the bundle of political economy institutions that promote functional efficiency.

PurposeThis paper seeks to consider a significant market misconception and related errors commonly made by valuers, financial decision makers, and other users of valuation services. Its purpose is to focus on the importance of relating the explicit requirements of market value and fair value definitions to the evidence required for a supportable opinion of either.Design/methodology/approachThe paper provides conceptual foundations for the terms "market value" and "fair value" and reviews their meanings and applications in a historical context. Business cycles and the recent recession are used as foundations for illustrating how prices, such as for real estate, vary with cycles, but are not always directly indicative of either market value or fair value. The latter term has a long history, but has undergone recent definition and revision by the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that are shown to closely align fair value with market value. A current controversy over the use of transactions as prima fascie, or perhaps the only indication of market value is discussed and the "market" of "market value" is examined.FindingsThe paper offers a new look at market evidence concepts that are time‐honored, yet have been largely lost or forgotten. The principal finding is that duress is not consistent with conventional definitions of market value or fair value, yet significant market evidence exists that duress is often ignored or improperly considered in valuations and financial decisions. The paper also concludes that the FASB's focus on "market participants" (sellers and buyers) as the prime source of Fair Value evidence is akin to the rules which have applied to market value for many decades. The paper concludes with a discussion of why transactions may be evidence of "a market," but are not necessarily representative of the "market" or of fair value.Originality/valueMarket Value is a market protection against fraud, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding. Valuations must be performed in accordance with that definition – not as it is interpreted for personal gain or for any other interpretations of convenience, misunderstanding, or special purpose.

This paper examines the relation between debt, value and dignity in the context of the still present European Union debt crisis. It considers dignity as a human value and as a moral value. Dignity is namely closely related to a human value, dignity and (human) value or worth being synonymous, as well as the most important moral value for the European Union, as evidenced from the Treaty of Lisbon. It is stated that both in the contexts of labour and of debt, the contradictive elements necessity and freedom have a vital impact on human dignity, and thus also on human essence (or being) and value as the two essential ingredients of dignity. The argument of this paper is that value plays a key role for losing dignity or a loss of dignity both in the contexts of labour and of debt. Namely, in the context of labour what is critical is the value of things, and in the context of (public) debt what is critical is the value of debt, since both values are considered to be in a contraposition with the human value or the value of man (worker and debtor or rather "debtor"). It is thus reasoned that value held primarily in the interests of the economic market is counter to human value and human dignity; however, it is not also counter to moral value, as dignity is not just a human value but also a moral value. Namely, it is noticed that the role of the moral values is to mask the importance of such value held primarily in the interests of the economic market on the one side and the simultaneous unimportance of the human value on the other side. Thus, although the European Union publicly promotes both sides of value, the difference is that the value held primarily in the interests of the economic market is being promoted in actuality, whereas human value is being promoted only in words, first and foremost vía statements of morality.

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 -- Value and Valuation -- Chapter 2 -- Some Methodological Issues -- Chapter 3 -- Interregna -- Chapter 4 -- Varieties of Capitalism -- Chapter 5 -- "And What is the Use of Use?" - The Specification of Hegemony -- Chapter 6 -- To Have or Not-to-Have - That is the Question -- Chapter 7 -- Excursus: Concentralisation and Determinants of Value -- Chapter 8 -- History Matters: About Embedding, Disembedding and Changing the Bed - or: Value and Values Revisited -- Chapter 9 -- Role and Scope of Digitisation -- Chapter 10 -- Design-Value -- I. Designing Society as Productive Network and Network of Productivity -- (A) Value and Valuation -- (B) Fictitious Commodities: Enforced Reductionism -- (C) References Lost: The Era of Digitisation -- (D) Value and Valuation - Enhancing the Common Denominator -- Chapter 11 -- Varieties of Accumulation of Wealth - The Socialisation of Time -- II. Designing the Process of Production Not Least in Its Managerial Dimension - e.g., the Role of the Firm and Non-Firm -- Chapter 12 -- Privatising the Social - Superexploitation -- Chapter 13 -- Returning to the Future -- III. Designing the Producer -- IV. Designing the Consumer -- Chapter 14 -- Distribution's Other Take: Private and Public as Reference of Value and Valuation -- Conclusion -- References -- About the Author -- Index -- Blank Page.