PurposeThe authors empirically examine the impact of the stand-alone risk committee on corporate risk-taking and firm value.Design/methodology/approachThe authors argue that the existence of a stand-alone risk committee enhances the quality of corporate governance, which reduces corporate risk-taking and strengthens the firm value that might improve investor protection.FindingsThe authors find corporate risk-taking decline significantly for firms that have a stand-alone risk committee compared with firms that have a joint audit and risk committee. The authors also find that the presence of a stand-alone risk committee is positively associated with firm value.Practical implicationsThe evidence is consistent with the proposition that firms with a stand-alone risk committee can effectively evaluate potential risks and implement a proper risk management system.Originality/valueThis is the first paper that investigates the association between the existence of a stand-alone risk committee and firm risk-taking in a multi-industry setting. Also, our research extends the association between a stand-alone risk committee and firm value.

Recent evidence on the relationship between investor sentiment and subsequent monthly market returns in China shows that investor sentiment is a reliable momentum predictor since an increase (decrease) in investor sentiment leads to higher (lower) future returns. However, we suggest that momentum predictability of investor sentiment originates from the boom and bust period of 2006–2008 (the bubble period hereafter). The bubble period is characterized by several months of sustained optimism followed by several months of sustained pessimism, with the market consequently earning high (low) returns following high (low) sentiment months. Therefore, we find a strong positive association between investor sentiment and subsequent market returns during the bubble period. However, investor sentiment has a negligible impact on subsequent monthly market returns once we exclude the bubble period.

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the association between environmental disclosure and waste performance. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on a sample of S&P 500 firms over a nine-year period from 2010 to 2018. The pooled ordinary least squares (OLS), logistic, propensity score matching (PSM) and instrumental variable-generalized method of moments regressions analyses have been used to examine the data. Findings The findings show a significant positive relationship between waste performance and environmental disclosure, suggesting that firms with superior waste performance tend to disclose more environmental information. Further, the authors distinguish between “hard” and “soft” environmental disclosures and find that the effect of waste performance is consistently positive and significant for each type. The observed positive and significant association of waste performance with environmental disclosure remains unchanged, regardless of the industry affiliation of firms, although firms from industries that are less environmentally sensitive provide a slightly higher level of environmental disclosure. The authors also explore possible channels that may explain the association between waste performance and environmental disclosure and find that litigation risk and cash holdings positively moderate the association. The finding remains robust to a number of alternative estimation approaches. Originality/value Overall, the authors present important evidence that waste performance is an important indicator of environmental disclosure. The findings are useful for corporations and stakeholders and have important implications around the globe as the authors continue to grapple with the ongoing issue of waste.

Recent evidence on momentum returns shows that the time-series (TS) strategy outperforms the cross-sectional (CS) strategy. We present new evidence that this happens only when the market continues in the same state, UP or DOWN. In fact, we find that the TS strategy underperforms the CS strategy when the market transitions to a different state. Our results also show that the difference in momentum returns between TS and CS strategies is related to both the net long and net short positions of the TS strategy.