Facilities management action agenda : the Australian government and industry working together for improvement

This paper provides an overview of the Australian Government’s Facilities Management (FM) Action Agenda as announced in 2004 as a key policy plank designed to facilitate growth of the FM industry. The resulting consultation with industry leaders has seen the criterion and release in April 2005 of the FM Action Agenda’s strategic plan entitled ‘Managing the Built Environment’. This framework, representing a collaboration between the Australian Government, public and private sector stakeholders and Facility Management Association of Australia (FMA Australia) and other allied bodies, sets out to achieve the vision of a more “…productive and sustainable built environment…” through improved innovation, education and standards. The 36 month implementation phase is now underway and will take a multi-pronged approach to enhancing the recognition of the FM industry and removing impediments to its growth with a 20 point action plan across the following platforms: • Innovation – Improved appreciation of facility life cycles, and greater understanding of the key drivers of workplace productivity, and the improved application of information technology. • Education and Training – Improved access to dedicated FM education and training opportunities and creation clear career pathways into the profession. • Regulatory Reform – Explore opportunities to harmonise cross jurisdictional regulatory compliance requirements that have an efficiency impact on FM. • Sustainability – Improved utilization of existing knowledge and the development of tools and opportunities to improve the environmental performance of facilities. Additional information is available at www.fma.com.au

Agency Conflicts and Corporate Payout Policies: A Global Study

We investigate the roles of finn and country level agency conflicts in determining corporate payout policics. Based on a large sample of 29,610 firms in 42 countries from 2001 to 2006, we show there is a form of "pecking order" in investors' ability to extract cash (whether as dividends only or share repurchases) from firms. Although investors are able to use their legal powers to extract cash from firms in high protection countries, their ability to do so can be substantially hindered when agency costs at the firm level are high. In poor protection countries, investors seem to take whatever cash they can get, even though the amount may be small, and with scant regard for investment opportunities and firm level agency conflicts. Finally, compared to repurchases, we find dividends are more likely to be the sole method of payout in high protection countries and in non insider-dominated firms.

The home stigma : adverse selection in ADRs and the home capital market environment

We investigate whether characteristics of the home country capital environment, such as information disclosure and investor rights protection continue to affect ADRs cross-listed in the U.S. Using microstructure measures as proxies for adverse selection, we find that characteristics of the home markets continue to be relevant, especially for emerging market firms. Less transparent disclosure, poorer protection of investor rights and weaker legal institutions are associated with higher levels of information asymmetry. Developed market firms appear to be affected by whether or not home business laws are common law or civil law legal origin. Our finding contributes to the bonding literature. It suggests that cross-listing in the U.S. should not be viewed as a substitute for improvement in the quality of local institutions, and attention must be paid to improve investor protection in order to achieve the full benefits of improved disclosure. Improvement in the domestic capital market environment can attract more investors even for U.S. cross-listed firms.

The cost of being ethical : evidence from Islamic equity funds

This paper examines the relationship between financial performance and ethical screening intensity of a special class of ethical funds that is rooted in Islamic values – Islamic equity funds (IEFs). These faith-based ethical funds screen investments on compliance with Islamic values where conventional interest expense (riba), gambling (maysir), excessive uncertainty (gharar), and non-ethical (non-halal) products are prohibited. We test whether these extra screens affect the financial performance of IEFs relative to non-Islamic funds. Based on a large survivorship-free international sample of 387 Islamic funds, our results show that IEFs on average underperform conventional funds by 40 basis points per month, or 4.8% per year (supporting the underperformance hypothesis). While Islamic funds do not generally perform better during crisis periods, they outperformed conventional funds during the recent sub-prime crisis (supporting the outperformance hypothesis). Using holdings-based measures for ethical screening intensity, results show IEFs that apply more intensive screening perform worse, suggesting that there is a cost to being ethical.