Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the existing literature on the relationship between firm-level risk and returns and to explore other ways of measuring firm risk-taking. Literature overwhelmingly shows a negative relationship between firm-level risk and returns based on accounting data, which is counter-intuitive from the rational perspective of risk-aversion. This paper revisits this so-called Bowman’s paradox by examining the wealth of literature on the topic and empirically tests alternative measures of firm risk-taking that could provide a counter-argument on the existence of the paradox. Design/methodology/approach After formulating the criteria for such a measure, potential measures of firm risk-taking were developed based on variability of some key financial ratios and empirically tested using US listed companies’ data for several time periods from 1992 to 2016. Literature has explored the use of these financial ratios (e.g. R&D expenses as percentage of sales) based only on their magnitude. This paper is novel in that it examines the variability and not just the magnitude of these parameters. Findings Results showed the same counter-intuitive negative relationship between firm risk-taking and returns but the paper was able to identify an area for future theory development that hopefully will lead to a firm risk-taking measure that would exhibit the elusive positive relationship with returns. Originality/value The literature review of this paper brought together and provided a succinct classification of the various explanations for Bowman’s paradox that allowed the identification of a potentially rich area of research. It identified a gap in the literature which is the formulation of suitable measures of firm risk-taking and made investigations in this area.

This article presents an industry study of wealth management and financial advisory services in the Asia-Pacific region, recognizing the strong growth in personal wealth in this region. It aims to gain an understanding of the structure of the industry, comments on current directions, and assesses the opportunities in the region. The article starts with a look at the wealth management and financial advisory services industry in the United States, on which the practices in other countries are patterned, also noting that U.S. financial entities are major players in the Asia-Pacific region. The author then examines the industry in Australia, which has a relatively well-developed financial advisory environment and continues with a look at the industry in other major Asia-Pacific countries. For each country, the article assesses the industry participants and the regulatory environment. Finally, the article describes the general trends that impact the industry and identifies potential opportunities for the future.

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper, the optimality of Australian financial planning clients' asset allocations are analysed using the mean-variance formulation of the Modern Portfolio Theory. The asset allocations recommended by financial planning groups are examined. The mean-variance characteristics of the various asset classes are derived from historical indices, using last 21 years data and last 5 years data.The return-risk values of the recommended portfolios are determined and a simple method of iso-risk maximum return calculation using the Excel Solver command is utilised to determine the corresponding optimal portfolios. The recommended portfolios were found to have expected returns that are around 8% and 32% below optimal returns based on last 21 years data and last 5 years data, respectively.