Skip to main content
Log in

Corporate Policy and Market Value: A q-Theory Approach

  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we show that Tobin's q has a significant predictive power in explaining valuation consequences of major corporate policy variables. Our empirical results reveal that, depending upon whether a firm is overinvesting or underinvesting, financial markets respond quite differently to its capital structure, dividend payout, financial slack, and R & D decisions. Overall, the empirical results suggest that both high debt ratios and greater payouts are favorably viewed by the market when firms are overinvesting. For firms with growth opportunities, however, large debt is unfavorably viewed by the market. In addition, financial slack and R & D expenditures are favorably received by the market for growth firms but not for overinvesting firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ben-Zion, U., “The Investment Aspects of Non-productive Expenditures: An Empirical Test.” Journal of Economics and Business 30, 224–229, (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, W.C. and J. Tobin, “Econometric Models: Their Problems and Usefulness—Pitfalls in Financial Model Building.” American Economic Review 58, 99–122, (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S.H., J.D. Martin, and J.W. Kensinger, “Corporate Research and Development Expenditures and Share Value.” Journal of Financial Economics 26, 255–276, (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, K.H. and S.W. Pruitt, “A Simple Approximation of Tobin's q.” Financial Management 23, 70–74, (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, R.A. and M. Hirschey, “R & D, Market Structure and Profits: A Value-based Approach.” Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 682–686, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook, F.H., “Two Agency Costs Explanations of Dividends.” American Economic Review 74, 650–659, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, G. and R. Jacobson, “Gaining Comparative Advantage through Discretionary Expenditures: The Returns to R & D and Advertising.” Management Science 38, 1264–1279, (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, W.A. and G.E. Battese, “Estimation of Linear Models with Crossed-error Structure.” Journal of Econometrics 2, 67–78, (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., “Market Value, R & D, and Patents.” Economic Letters 7, 183–187, (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.H., “The Manufacturing Sector Master File Documentation: 1959–1987.” Mimeo (University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA), 1990.

  • Hall, B.H., “The Stock Market's Valuation of R & D Investment during the 1980's.” American Economic Review 83, 259–264, (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, F., “Tobin's Marginal q and Average q: A Neoclassical Interpretation.” Econometrica 50, 215–224, (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, F. and T. Inoue, “The Relation between Firm Growth and q with Multiple Capital Goods: Theory and Evidence from Panel Data on Japanese Firms.” Econometrica 59, 731–753, (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., “Intangible Capital Aspects of Advertising and R & D Expenditures.” Journal of Industrial Economics 30, 375–390, (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A.B., “Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R & D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value.” American Economic Review 76, 984–1001, (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers.” American Economic Review 76, 323–329, (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jose, M.L., L.M. Nichols, and J. Stevens, “Contributions of Diversification, Promotion, and R & D to the Value of Multiproduct Firms: A Tobin's q Approach.” Financial Management 15, 33–42, (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, K., Y. Kim, and R. Stulz, “Timing, Investment Opportunities, Managerial Discretion, and the Security Issue Decision.” Journal of Financial Economics 42, 159–185, (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L. and R.H. Litzenberger, “Dividend Announcements: Cash Flow Signalling vs. Free Cash Flow Hypothesis?” Journal of Financial Economics 24, 181–191, (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L., E. Ofek, and R. Stulz, “Leverage, Investment, and Firm Growth.” Journal of Financial Economics 40, 3–29, (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W.H., “The Effect of Exchange Offers and Stock Swaps on Equity Risk and Shareholders' Wealth: A Signalling Model Approach.” Ph.D. dissertation (UCLA, Los Angeles, CA), 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, E.B. and S.A. Ross, “Tobin's q Ratio and Industrial Organization.” Journal of Business 54, 1–32, (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkiel, B., G.M. Von Furstenberg, and H.S. Watson, “Expectations, Tobin's q, and Industry Investment.” Journal of Finance 34, 549–654, (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Masulis, R.W., “The Effects of Capital Structure Change on Security Prices: A Study of Exchange Offers.” Journal of Financial Economics 8, 139–177, (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mood, A., F. Graybill, and D. Boes, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., “Corporate Performance and Managerial Remuneration: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 7, 11–42, (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S., “The Capital Structure Puzzle.” Journal of Finance 39, 575–592, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. and N. Majluf, “Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have Information That Investors Do Not Have.” Journal of Financial Economics 13, 187–222, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., “On Patents, R & D, and Stock Market Rate of Return.” Journal of Political Economy 93, 390–409, (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilotte, E., “Growth Opportunities and the Stock Price Response to New Financing.” Journal of Business 65, 371–4, (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozeff, M., “Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratios.” Journal of Financial Research 5, 249–259, (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinger, F.M., “Tobin's q, Unionization, and the Concentration-Profits Relationship.” Rand Journal of Economics 15, 159–170, (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaller, H., “A Re-examination of the q Theory of Investment using U.S. Firm Data.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 5, 309–325, (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, L.H., “Taxation and Corporate Investment: A q-Theory Approach.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 67–127, (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A.K., T. John, and K. John, “An Empirical Analysis of Strategic Competition and Firm Values: The Case of R & D Competition.” Journal of Financial Economics 40, 459–486, (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J., “Monetary Policies and the Economy: The Transmission Mechanism.” Southern Economic Journal 44, 421–431, (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H., “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48, 817–838, (1980).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chung, K.H., Wright, P. Corporate Policy and Market Value: A q-Theory Approach. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 11, 293–310 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008385900638

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008385900638

Navigation