Essays on the selection of securities: Decision on acquisition and issuance perspectives and decision rules

This dissertation is a discourse on the capital market and its interactive framework of acquisition and issuance of financial assets that drive the economy from both sides—investors/lenders and issuers/users of capital assets. My work consists of four essays in financial economics that offer a spectrum of revisions to this significant area of study. The first essay is a delineation of the capital market over the past half a century and major developments on capital markets on issues that pertain to the investor's opportunity set and the corporation's capital-raising availability set. This chapter should have merits on two counts: (i) a comprehensive account of capital markets and return-generating assets and (ii) a backdrop against which I present my findings in Chapters 2 through 4. ^ In Chapter 2, I rework on the Markowitz-Roy-Tobin structure of the efficient frontier and of the Separation Theorem. Starting off with a 2-asset portfolio and extending the paradigm to an n-asset portfolio, I bring out the optimal choice of assets for an investor under constrained utility maximization. In this chapter, I analyze the selection and revision-theoretic construct and bring out optimum choices. The effect of a change in perceived risk or return in the mind of an investor is ascertained on the portfolio composition. ^ Chapter 3 takes a look into corporations that issue market securities. The question of how a corporation decides what kinds of securities it should issue in the marketplace to raise funds brings out the classic value invariance proposition of Modigliani and Miller and fills the gap that existed in the literature for almost half a century. I question the general validity in the classic results of Modigliani and Miller and modify the existing literature on the celebrated value invariance proposition. ^ Chapter 4 takes the Modigliani-Miller regime to its correct prescription in the presence of corporate and personal taxes. I show that Modigliani-Miller's age-old proposition needs corrections and extensions, which I derive. ^ My dissertation overall brings all of these corrections and extensions to the existing literature as my findings, showing that capital markets are in an ever-changing state of necessary revision. ^

The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements

In his study -The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, Michigan State University, Tarras initially states: “The collection division of the internal revenue service is often the point of contact for many hospitality businesses. The author describes how the division operates, what the hospitality firm can expect when contacted by it, and what types of strategies firms might find helpful when negotiating a settlement with the IRS.” The author will have you know that even though most chance meetings with the IRS Collection Division are due to unfortunate tax payment circumstances, there are actually more benign reasons for close encounters of the IRS kind. This does not mean, however, that brushes with the IRS Collection Division will end on an ever friendlier note. “…the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with its added complexity will cause some hospitality firms to inadvertently fail to make proper payments on a timely basis,” Tarras affords in illustrating a perhaps less pugnacious side of IRS relations. Should a hospitality business owner represent himself/herself before the IRS? Never, says Tarras. “Too many taxpayers ruin their chances of a fair settlement by making what to them seem innocent remarks, but ones that turn out to be far different,” warns Professor Tarras. Tarras makes the distinction between IRS the Collection Division, and IRS the Audit Division. “While the Audit Division is interested in how the tax liability arose, the Collection Division is generally only interested in collecting the liability,” he informs you. Either sounds firmly in hostile territory. They don’t bluff. Tarras does want you to know that when the IRS threatens to levy on the assets of a hospitality business, they will do so. Those assets may extend to personal and real property as well, he says. The levy action is generally the final resort in an IRS collection effort. Professor Tarras explains the lien process and the due process attached to that IRS collection tactic. “The IRS can also levy a hospitality firm owner's wages. In this case, it is important to realize that you are allowed to exempt from levy $75 per week, along with $25 per week for each of your dependents (unless your spouse works),” Professor Tarras says with the appropriate citation. What are the options available to the hospitality business owner who finds himself on the wrong side of the IRS Collection Division? Negotiate in good faith says Professor Tarras. “In many cases, a visit to the IRS office will greatly reduce the chances that a simple problem will turn into a major one,” Tarras advises. He dedicates the last pages of the discussion to negotiation strategies.

Evaluating and Selecting a Property Management System

In his study - Evaluating and Selecting a Property Management System - by Galen Collins, Assistant Professor, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Northern Arizona University, Assistant Professor Collins states briefly at the outset: “Computerizing a property requires a game plan. Many have selected a Property Management System without much forethought and have been unhappy with the final results. The author discusses the major factors that must be taken into consideration in the selection of a PMS, based on his personal experience.” Although, this article was written in the year 1988 and some information contained may be dated, there are many salient points to consider. “Technological advances have encouraged many hospitality operators to rethink how information should be processed, stored, retrieved, and analyzed,” offers Collins. “Research has led to the implementation of various cost-effective applications addressing almost every phase of operations,” he says in introducing the computer technology germane to many PMS functions. Professor Collins talks about the Request for Proposal, its conditions and its relevance in negotiating a PMS system. The author also wants the system buyer to be aware [not necessarily beware] of vendor recommendations, and not to rely solely on them. Exercising forethought will help in avoiding the drawback of purchasing an inadequate PMS system. Remember, the vendor is there first and foremost to sell you a system. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the adjectives unreliable and unethical are on the table, but do be advised. Professor Collins presents a graphic outline for the Weighted Average Approach to Scoring Vendor Evaluations. Among the elements to be considered in evaluating a PMS system, and there are several analyzed in this essay, Professor Collins advises that a perspective buyer not overlook the service factor when choosing a PMS system. Service is an important element to contemplate. “In a hotel environment, the special emphasis should be on service. System downtime can be costly and aggravating and will happen periodically,” Collins warns. Professor Collins also examines the topic of PMS system environment; of which the importance of such a factor should not be underestimated. “The design of the computer system should be based on the physical layout of the property and the projected workloads. The heart of the system, housed in a protected, isolated area, can support work stations strategically located throughout the property,” Professor Collins provides. A Property Profile Description is outlined in Table 1. The author would also point out that ease-of-operation is another significant factor to think about. “A user-friendly software package allows the user to easily move through the program without encountering frustrating obstacles,” says Collins. “Programs that require users to memorize abstract abbreviations, codes, and information to carry out standard routines should be avoided,” he counsels.

Municipal accountability: Should regulations similar to the Sarbanes -Oxley Act apply to the local sector?

As America moved into the 2lst century financial scandals associated with large publicly traded corporations brought widespread concern about the reliability of financial reporting. In response the U.S. Congress adopted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Undergirding SOX was the belief that improvements in the reliability of an organization's financial disclosures would lead to increased trust in the issuing organization. While SOX is aimed at publicly traded private sector organizations, the value of adopting SOX-like practices in the public and the nonprofit sectors have been recognized. Although SOX-like auditing practices have not at the time of this research become part of the auditing regime for municipalities, the results of this research provide a baseline "read" of municipal finance officers' perceptions of the value and obstacles associated with adoption of two major components of SOX: Principal Officer(s) Certification (POC) and the Independent Audit Committee (IAC) requirements. The author mailed surveys to all finance officers of municipalities in Florida and Ohio with populations of 10,000 or greater which did not contract out the operation of their finance departments. Post-survey "elite" interviews were conducted in an effort to obtain a deeper understanding of revealed issues and contradictions found in the analysis of the results of the mails survey. The findings suggest municipal finance officers are willing to adopt POC but have reservations about implementing IAC. With both POC and IAC the respondents appeared to consider intangible, non-pecuniary consequences as much or more than tangible, pecuniary consequences. Consistent with prior research, attitudes regarding POC and IAC were found to be unrelated to prior adoptive behavior, or personal and organizational demographic variables. Although accounting and auditing are inexorably intertwined, views of the recently implemented GASB 34 reporting model were found to be unrelated to the willingness to adopt POC or IAC. Findings dovetail with current discourse in public sector accounting suggesting local finance professionals may see benefits—both tangible and intangible—to some but not all accounting practices adopted in the private sector. This is consistent with the commonly accepted belief that public sector accounting maintains fundamental differences from its private counterpart.