Search results

Strategy is ultimately aimed at creating shareholder value. We examine the relationship among intrinsic (DCF) value, market value, and the value of growth options using a “perfect foresight” model. Our findings suggest that Kester's (1984) initial assessment of growth option values may not hold under alternative valuation models. We highlight important issues in the valuation of growth options related to market expectations, modeling assumptions and estimation methods. The findings suggest that the firm's growth option value depends on three factors, each of which impacts investor expectations: (1) the macroeconomic environment; (2) the industry in which the firm participates; and (3) firm specific factors.

This article provides a detailed investigation of how Lewis revisited classical and Marxian concepts such as productive/unproductive labor, economic surplus, subsistence wages, reserve army, and capital accumulation in his investigation of economic development. The Lewis 1954 development model is compared to other models advanced at the time by Harrod, Domar, Swan, Kaldor, Solow, von Neumann, Nurkse, Rosenstein-Rodan, Myint, and others. Lewis applied the notion of economic duality to open and closed economies.

The neo-Kaleckian model follows the ideas of Marx, Keynes and Kalecki, that investment is a key influencing factor in the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production. Through the discussion of different forms of investment decision function, this paper constructs the analysis framework of wage-led and profit-led economic growth regimes.

The model has become an important theoretical paradigm for current Western heterodox economists regarding the research on the impact of functional income distribution on economic growth, and it has a very large impact on both theoretical and empirical research. Starting from Marx's reproduction theory, this article discusses the theoretical shortcomings of the neo-Kaleckian growth regime model.

This paper mainly focuses on three aspects: (1) the ideological legacy of “Smith's Dogma”; (2) neglecting the restrictions on income distribution from the organic composition of capital and the surplus value rate; (3) technological progress and the formation of a new long economic wave.

The authors believe that the neo-Kaleckian model unilaterally emphasizes the demand-side factors in the economy and, unconsciously or not, ignores the role of the supply-side, which makes it encounter certain limitations in explaining long-term growth. Even if some empirical conclusions are employed to bridge functional income distribution and technological progress, there is still a lack of a theoretical basis for accurately describing long-term economic changes using this model. In order to better promote high-quality economic development and accelerate the formation of a new pattern of economic development in which the domestic large-scale cycle is the mainstay and the domestic and international double cycles promote each other, the authors need to adopt a policy combination with the supply-side as the main and the demand-side as the supplement, and to work from both sides.

This study investigates the relationship between the development of academic spin-offs (ASOs) and the type of financing involved, by considering three research questions: How do ASOs differ in terms of financing? To what extent and for what reasons do ASOs differ in their financing? How do business and growth models dictate the selection of different sorts of financing arrangement?

The study employs a grounded-theory, qualitative approach based on 39 Spanish ASOs.

There is a heterogeneity of ASO financing, and the selection of financial resources is related to the business and growth model of the ASO. Furthermore, there are some critical junctures for financing within each group of ASOs.

The study advances the understanding of the determinants of ASOs, specifically with respect to financing, business models and growth orientation. The Spanish context used here may not permit the global generalisation of the results; nevertheless, this study is a response to calls to consider the effect of regional context on ASOs.

Knowing the heterogeneity of ASOs in terms of financing and how business and growth models determines the selection of distinct financing sources help financial planning, investment decisions and the design of programmes and policies, which can be relevant for both ASOs and their stakeholders (investors, universities and governments).

This study provides a comprehensive view of ASO financing, confirming a heterogeneity, not only in terms of financing but also in some critical junctures that presage a change from one type of financing to another.

The purpose of this paper is to use fundamental models incorporating structural relationships within the firm in a terminal value model for the second stage of a two-stage valuation model utilized to estimate the value of a company.

The innovation is that growth options are identified within the structural relationships and a model capturing the value of the optionality is incorporated in the second stage of the two-stage valuation model.

Significant outcomes are that terminal value is shown to be a large portion of a company’s total value and the price behavior for initial public offerings produced by the model is consistent with the result of empirical studies.

This paper explicitly incorporates growth options in the second stage of a two-stage valuation model for the firm.

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.