Capital markets and the market structure of foreign investments

Contrary to the long-received theory of FDI, interest rates or rates of return can motivate foreign direct investment (FDI) in concert with the benefits of direct ownership. Thus, access to investor capital and capital markets is a vital component of the multinational’s competitive market structure. Moreover, multinationals can use their superior financial capacity as a competitive advantage in exploiting FDI opportunities in dynamic markets. They can also mitigate higher levels of foreign business risks under dynamic conditions by shifting more financial risk to creditors in the host economy. Furthermore, the investor’s expectation of foreign business risk necessarily commands a risk premium for exposing their equity to foreign market risk. Multinationals can modify the profit maximization strategy of their foreign subsidiaries to maximize growth or profits to generate this risk premium. In this context, we investigate how foreign subsidiaries manage their capital funding, business risk, and profit strategies with a diverse sample of 8,000 matched parents and foreign subsidiary accounts from multiple industries in 38 countries.We find that interest rates, asset prices, and expectations in capital markets have a significant effect on the capital movements of foreign subsidiaries. We also find that foreign subsidiaries mitigate their exposure to foreign business risk by modifying their capital structure and debt maturity. Further, we show how the operating strategy of foreign subsidiaries affects their preference for growth or profit maximization. We further show that superior shareholder value, which is a vital link for access to capital for funding foreign expansion in open market economies, is achieved through maintaining stability in the rate of growth and good asset utilization.

Risk and structural instability in US house prices

This paper employs a Component GARCH in Mean model to show that house prices across a number of major US cities between 1987 and 2009 have displayed asset market properties in terms of both risk-return relationships and asymmetric adjustment to shocks. In addition, tests for structural breaks in the mean and variance indicate structural instability across the data range. Multiple breaks are identified across all cities, particularly for the early 1990s and during the post-2007 financial crisis as housing has become an increasingly risky asset. Estimating the models over the individual sub-samples suggests that over the last 20 years the financial sector has increasingly failed to account for the levels of risk associated with real estate markets. This result has possible implications for the way in which financial institutions should be regulated in the future.