A comparative analysis of corporate finance in the United States and Japan from 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.

A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Finance in the United States and Japan From 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.

Three essays on self-employment transitions, organizational capital, and firm formation

This dissertation explores how economic, organizational, and personal factors affect self-employment transitions, occupational decisions, and firm formation activities of individuals at different positions in the skill distribution. The first essay of my dissertation studies how local unemployment rates differentially affect entry into self-employment by individuals at different places in the skill distribution. The empirical results show a positive correlation between local unemployment rates and entry into self-employment for low-ability workers, but not for high-ability workers. Including employer size to eliminate possible distortions showed that the positive association between unemployment and self-employment among low-ability workers is in fact driven by the small firm effect. Controlling for firm size yields a negative association between unemployment and self-employment among high-ability workers. Effects of organizational capital, human capital and physical capital, on the firm formation activities of people at distinct skill levels depend on the type of the industry which is chosen for the new firm. Two types of industries, capital-intensive and ability-intensive, are utilized to explore this hypothesis in the second essay. A capital-intensive industry requires more physical investment, and consequently more funds, whereas, an ability-intensive industry requires more human capital. It is shown that high human capital requirements are associated with higher earnings among the most able individuals, and therefore makes them more likely to found firms in an ability-intensive industry. Wealthy people are more likely to establish both capital-intensive and ability-intensive firms, even though the amount of funds necessary for two industry types differs. Moreover, entry into both industries is predicted to happen later in life due to the removal of entry barriers constituted by required investment spending using savings when old. Empirical mixed results are observed. The third essay investigates earning differentials between future entrepreneurs and their non-entrepreneurial colleagues. Results show that high-ability firm-owners in an ability-intensive industry were earning more than those that remained in wage-work, whereas, low-ability firm-owners in a capital-intensive industry were earning less than those remaining in paid-work.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986: Impact On Hospitality Industries

In her discussion - The Tax Reform Act Of 1986: Impact On Hospitality Industries - by Elisa S. Moncarz, Associate Professor, the School of Hospitality Management at Florida International University, Professor Moncarz initially states: “After nearly two years of considering the overhaul of the federal tax system, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The impact of this legislation is expected to affect virtually all individuals and businesses associated with the hospitality industry. This article discusses some of the major provisions of the tax bill, emphasizing those relating to the hospitality service industries and contrasting relevant provisions with prior law on their positive and negative effects to the industry. “On October 22, 1986, President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86) with changes so pervasive that a recodification of the income tax laws became necessary…,” Professor Moncarz says in providing a basic history of the bill. Two, very important paragraphs underpin TRA 86, and this article. They should not be under-estimated. The author wants you to know: “With the passage of TRA 86, the Reagan administration achieved the most important single domestic initiative of Reagan's second term, a complete restructuring of the federal tax system in an attempt to re-establish fairness in the tax code…,” an informed view, indeed. “These changes will result in an estimated shift of over $100 billion of the tax burden from individuals to corporations over the next five years [as of this article],” Professor Moncarz enlightens. “…TRA 86 embraces a conversion to the view that lowering tax rates and eliminating or restricting tax preferences (i.e., loopholes) “would be more economically and socially productive.” Hence, economic decisions would be based on economic efficiency as opposed to tax effect,” the author asserts. “…both Congress and the administration recognized from its inception that the reform of the tax code must satisfy three basic goals,” and these goals are identified for you. Professor Moncarz outlines the positive impact TRA 86 will have on the U.S. economy in general, but also makes distinctions the ‘Act will have on specific segments of the business community, with a particular eye toward the hospitality industry and food-service in particular. Professor Moncarz also provides graphs to illustrate the comparative tax indexes of select companies, encompassing the years 1883-through-1985. Deductibility and its importance are discussed as well. The author foresees Limited Partnerships, employment, and even new hotel construction and/or rehabilitation being affected by TRA 86. The article, as one would assume from this type of discussion, is liberally peppered with facts and figures.

The Emotional Intelligence of National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) Vending and Coffee Services Industries Executives: A Pilot Study

The authors report the pilot study focused on identifying the emotional intelligence (El) of leaders in the automatic merchandising and coffee service industries. The data were collected from 39 executives, members of National Automatic Merchandising Association (NM), who attended 2005 Executive Development Program on the campus of Michigan State University. Three elements of EI- IN, OUT, RELATIONSHIP for these leaders are discussed.