No abstract

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/59950/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Abstract In this study, we examine whether theoretically inconsistent foreign bond allocations are associated with economic fundamentals and/or non-economic behavioural factors. Using panel data for 54 developed and emerging markets spanning a temporal period of 12 years, the results show that non-economic factors, i.e. familiarity with foreign markets and behavioural characteristics of source markets, are the stronger drivers of biases in foreign bond allocations. Further, using the recent 2009-11 European sovereign debt crisis as an experimental set-up, we find that investors reduce their foreign bond allocations during the debt crisis, with the withdrawals being more severe from the most affected countries. We also find that the relevance of familiarity with foreign markets becomes more pronounced during the European debt crisis. However, in case of the recent 2007-09 global financial crisis, we find no evidence of change in foreign bias by international bond investors.JEL Classification: G02, G11, G15

PurposeThis study aims to contribute to the relatively limited historic literature on social and environmental accounting/accountability. More specifically, the study explores accounting and accountability for fisheries over time and determines potential legitimacy relations as conveyed through reporting.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis method is used to analyse a fisheries-related section of an annual report of a state-owned electricity firm for 56 years (1935/36–1993). The time frame analysed is a period when environmental or social reporting was, in general, informal and not mandated. However, accountability was established for the company under study, through the legally mandated provision of (unspecific/discretional) information about fisheries activities. A lens evoking legitimacy relationships as a dyad is utilised.FindingsThe fisheries reporting within the case organisation is an early example of recognition of the important effects of business activities on the environment and biodiversity. The findings of the analyses suggest the content aligns with what may be anticipated in a contemporary setting. Drawing on trends noted from the content analysis, three potential legitimacy relationships are identified around the fisheries reporting. Only one is determined as a complete legitimacy relationship.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is limited in that it is an analysis of one case in a single context. Also, the content analysis methods used were developed specifically for the study, which may limit their application. Finally, the data source used, and the historic nature of the study, to some extent limits the ability to determine some legitimacy relationships.Originality/valueThis study offers some insights on the historic nature of environmental reporting from a fisheries perspective in the Northern Hemisphere. The longitudinal nature of the analysis also offers insights into how the content of the reporting changed over time. Additionally, the use of a relatively new approach to operationalising legitimacy may prove useful for future researchers in the accounting discipline, especially given recent concerns on how the concept of legitimacy has been utilised in such research.

Finance theory suggests that markets where foreign bond portfolio investors overweight their portfolio relative to the prescribed theoretical benchmark should experience higher international risk sharing. Correspondingly, the cost of debt in such markets should be lower compared to markets facing a lower degree of international risk sharing. We empirically examine this prediction using a panel data set of sovereign bond yield spreads and a measure of suboptimal foreign bond portfolio allocations for 50 emerging and ten developed markets.Consistent with theory, our results show higher levels of foreign bond allocations -relative to the theoretical benchmark -are negatively related to the cost of debt. These results have important policy implications as a country's cost of debt could potentially be lowered by encouraging foreign portfolio investors to hold their optimal allocation. JEL Classification: E43, G12, G15

No abstract