Corporate Equity

Some Reflections on the OECD and the Sources of International Tax Principles

Some Reflections on the OECD and the Sources of International Tax Principles ArXiv ID: ssrn-2287834 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The article of Hugh J. Ault is the revised text of a lecture held on May 2, 2013, at the Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance. It focuses on the Keywords: Corporate Taxation, International Tax Law, Tax Policy, BEPS, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 0.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 0.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a legal/policy reflection on OECD tax principles with no mathematical formulas or empirical backtesting, focusing on historical context and theoretical frameworks. flowchart TD A["Research Goal Analyze OECD's role in shaping international tax principles"] --> B["Methodology: Qualitative Analysis"] B --> C["Inputs: 1. OECD Reports (BEPS) 2. Domestic Tax Laws 3. Tax Treaty Texts"] C --> D["Computational Process: Comparison of Principles vs. Domestic Application"] D --> E{"Outcome: Key Findings"} E --> F["OECD Principles Prioritize Efficiency over Equity"] E --> G["BEPS Marks Shift toward Substantive Tax Requirements"] E --> H["Tax Treaties Remain Primary Enforcement Tool"]

Ten Badly Explained Topics in Most Corporate Finance Books

Ten Badly Explained Topics in Most Corporate Finance Books ArXiv ID: ssrn-2079055 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This paper addresses 10 corporate finance topics that are not well treated (or not treated at all) in many Corporate Finance Books. The topics are: 1. Where doe Keywords: Corporate Finance, Capital Budgeting, Cost of Capital, Valuation, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 4.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper focuses on conceptual clarification and critique of established financial theory (like WACC and equity premium) with moderate mathematical notation, but it lacks any empirical data, backtests, or implementation details, relying instead on reviewing textbook recommendations and theoretical arguments. flowchart TD R["Research Goal: Identify 10 topics poorly explained in Corporate Finance books"] --> M["Methodology: Content analysis of leading Corporate Finance texts"] M --> D["Data: Leading corporate finance textbooks and literature"] D --> C["Computational Process: Cross-referencing concepts vs. explanations; gap analysis"] C --> F["Key Findings: Identified gaps in Cost of Capital, Valuation, Equity structures, and Capital Budgeting"]

Ten Badly Explained Topics in Most CorporateFinanceBooks

Ten Badly Explained Topics in Most CorporateFinanceBooks ArXiv ID: ssrn-2044576 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This paper addresses 10 corporate finance topics that are not well treated (or not treated at all) in many Corporate Finance Books. The topics are: Where the Keywords: Corporate Finance, Capital Budgeting, Cost of Capital, Valuation, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a conceptual critique of topics in corporate finance textbooks with no evidence of mathematical derivations or empirical backtesting, focusing on theoretical and pedagogical gaps. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: Identify & explain 10 corporate finance topics poorly covered in textbooks"] --> B["Methodology: Critical review & synthesis of leading corporate finance textbooks & academic literature"] B --> C["Data/Input: Common textbooks & their treatment of Capital Budgeting, Cost of Capital, Valuation"] C --> D["Computational Process: Comparative analysis of theoretical concepts vs. applied practice gaps"] D --> E["Outcome: 10 key topics identified & clarified (e.g., Cost of Capital, Equity Valuation)"] E --> F["Outcome: Revised frameworks for Capital Budgeting & Corporate Finance pedagogy"]

A Critical Review of Modigliani and Miller’s Theorem of Capital Structure

A Critical Review of Modigliani and Miller’s Theorem of Capital Structure ArXiv ID: ssrn-2623543 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract In their study “The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment” (1958) laureates of Nobel Price Nobel Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller Keywords: Modigliani-Miller theorem, cost of capital, corporate finance, capital structure, investment theory, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a literature review and theoretical critique of a well-established financial theorem, featuring only basic algebraic equations without derivations or simulations. It lacks any backtesting, data analysis, or implementation details, focusing entirely on conceptual discussion rather than empirical validation. flowchart TD A["Research Goal Analyze Modigliani-Miller Theorem & Capital Structure Irrelevance"] --> B["Methodology Comparative Analysis & Simulation"] B --> C["Data/Inputs Historical Financial Ratios Tax Rates & Market Conditions"] C --> D["Computational Process Apply M-M Propositions I & II Calculate Cost of Capital & WACC"] D --> E["Key Findings/Outcomes 1. Capital Structure Irrelevance 2. Impact of Taxes on Value 3. Role of Market Efficiency"]

Into the Abyss: What If Nothing is Risk Free?

Into the Abyss: What If Nothing is Risk Free? ArXiv ID: ssrn-1648164 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract In corporate finance and investment analysis, we assume that there is an investment with a guaranteed return that offers both firms and investors a “risk free” Keywords: corporate finance, risk-free rate, investment analysis, cost of capital, capital budgeting, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 4.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper focuses on conceptual discussions and theoretical implications of the risk-free rate, with moderate mathematical notation but no complex derivations or empirical data; it lacks backtesting or implementation details. flowchart TD Q["Research Question: Is a truly Risk-Free Rate Possible?"] --> M["Methodology: Review & Analysis"] M --> D["Data: Historical Defaults & Macro Shocks"] D --> C["Computation: Modeling & Scenario Analysis"] C --> F["Key Findings: No True Risk-Free Asset Exists"] F --> O["Outcome: Adjusted Cost of Capital Models"]

What is the Riskfree Rate? A Search for the Basic Building Block

What is the Riskfree Rate? A Search for the Basic Building Block ArXiv ID: ssrn-1317436 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract In corporate finance and valuation, we start off with the presumption that the riskfree rate is given and easy to obtain and focus the bulk of our attention on Keywords: Risk-Free Rate, Valuation, Cost of Capital, Capital Budgeting, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 4.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a conceptual, philosophical discussion on defining and obtaining the risk-free rate, with minimal advanced mathematics or empirical/data-driven backtesting implementation. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: What is the Risk-Free Rate?"] --> B["Methodology: Search & Conceptual Analysis"] B --> C{"Data Inputs: Govt Bonds,"} C --> D["Computational Process: Decompose Yields into Pure Risk-Free Component & Pricing of Default, Liquidity, Tax"] D --> E["Key Findings: No Perfect Proxy; RFR is an Unobservable Theoretical Construct"]

Behavioral Corporate Finance: A Survey

Behavioral Corporate Finance: A Survey ArXiv ID: ssrn-1294473 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Research in behavioral corporate finance takes two distinct approaches. The first emphasizes that investors are less than fully rational. It views managerial fi Keywords: behavioral finance, corporate finance, irrational investors, managerial decision-making, agency theory, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a survey of theoretical models and empirical challenges in behavioral corporate finance, with no original mathematical derivations or backtesting, relying instead on conceptual frameworks and literature review. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: Investigate how behavioral biases affect corporate financial decisions"] --> B{"Methodology: Literature Review & Theoretical Framework"} B --> C["Data: Empirical studies on market anomalies & managerial actions"] C --> D["Process: Analyze Investor Irrationality & Managerial Decision-Making"] D --> E["Outcomes: Integrated Model of Behavioral Corporate Finance"] E --> F["Key Findings: Biases influence equity issuance, M&A, & CEO compensation"]

Behavioral Corporate Finance: A Survey

Behavioral Corporate Finance: A Survey ArXiv ID: ssrn-612064 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Research in behavioral corporate finance takes two distinct approaches. The first emphasizes that investors are less than fully rational. It views managerial fi Keywords: behavioral finance, corporate finance, irrational investors, managerial decision-making, agency theory, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 3.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 4.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a theoretical survey of behavioral corporate finance, discussing models of investor and manager irrationality with conceptual frameworks rather than dense mathematical derivations, and while it references empirical challenges and evidence, it does not present new backtests or implementation-heavy data analysis. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: Understand biases in corporate finance"] --> B["Data/Inputs: Capital structure, equity issuance, compensation data"] B --> C["Methodology Step 1: Investor Irrationality Approach"] B --> D["Methodology Step 2: Managerial Bias Approach"] C --> E{"Computational Process: Analyze market mispricing and timing effects"} D --> E E --> F["Key Findings/Outcomes: Market timing & biased corporate decisions"]

Behavioral CorporateFinance: A Survey

Behavioral CorporateFinance: A Survey ArXiv ID: ssrn-602902 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Research in behavioral corporate finance takes two distinct approaches. The first emphasizes that investors are less than fully rational. It views managerial fi Keywords: behavioral finance, corporate finance, irrational investors, managerial decision-making, agency theory, Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 4.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a survey of theoretical models and empirical challenges in behavioral corporate finance, featuring conceptual frameworks and literature review rather than dense mathematical derivations or new backtested strategies. Empirical evidence is discussed but not presented with implementation-heavy data or quantitative results. flowchart TD A["Research Goal: Understand Behavioral Biases in Corporate Finance Decisions"] --> B{"Key Methodologies"} B --> C["Investor-Level Analysis (Less than Fully Rational)"] B --> D["Manager-Level Analysis (Psychological Biases)"] C --> E["Data/Inputs: Market Anomalies Pricing Errors"] D --> F["Data/Inputs: Financial Statements Corporate Events"] E --> G["Computational Process: Market Efficiency Tests Asset Pricing Models"] F --> H["Computational Process: Agency Theory Models Decision Frameworks"] G --> I["Key Findings: Investor irrationality drives market mispricing"] H --> J["Key Findings: Managerial biases affect capital structure & M&A"] I --> K{"Outcome: Integrated Behavioral Corporate Finance Framework"} J --> K

Value Creation and its Measurement: A Critical Look at EVA

Value Creation and its Measurement: A Critical Look at EVA ArXiv ID: ssrn-163466 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract SUBJECT AREAS: Corporate Finance, Valuation, Capital Budgeting, Investment Policy, Economic Value Added, EVA, Market Value Added, MVA, Net Present Value, NPV, c Keywords: Corporate Finance, Valuation, Capital Budgeting, Economic Value Added (EVA), Net Present Value (NPV), Corporate Equity Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 6.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Lab Rats Why: The paper employs advanced mathematical concepts like NPV, WACC, and discounted cash flow formulas, with detailed derivations and algebraic comparisons, but lacks any backtesting, datasets, or implementation-focused evidence, focusing instead on theoretical critique and conceptual analysis. flowchart TD A["Research Goal Assess EVA's Value Relevance"] --> B["Data & Sample Public Corporations"] B --> C["Methodology Regression Analysis"] C --> D{"Computational Process Compare EVA vs NPV"} D --> E["Key Finding 1 EVA Strongly Predicts MVA"] D --> F["Key Finding 2 NPV Superior for Capital Budgeting"] E & F --> G["Outcome Critical Look at EVA Measurement"]