2004
DOI: 10.1080/10291954.2004.11435109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Market segmentation and the cost of equity of companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The study found that the market premium based on an arithmetic mean was 6.8%. Generally, studies of historical market premiums in the 1990s found risk premiums to be in order of 7 to 10% (see Uliana 2004 andMcLeod 1999). The results of the PWC survey ( 2005) are generally consistent with the results or this survey, with similar use made mainly and equally between Bloomberg and Cadiz/UCT Financial Risk Service, and slightly less use of McGregor.…”
Section: Figure 7 the Use Of Beta Servicessupporting
confidence: 60%
“…The study found that the market premium based on an arithmetic mean was 6.8%. Generally, studies of historical market premiums in the 1990s found risk premiums to be in order of 7 to 10% (see Uliana 2004 andMcLeod 1999). The results of the PWC survey ( 2005) are generally consistent with the results or this survey, with similar use made mainly and equally between Bloomberg and Cadiz/UCT Financial Risk Service, and slightly less use of McGregor.…”
Section: Figure 7 the Use Of Beta Servicessupporting
confidence: 60%
“…In contrast, Namibia has a value of 17.28%. While these values are high, Correia and Uliana (2004) find costs of equity using a one-factor CAPM on a similar scale. However, there is considerable dispersion in the cost of equity Notes: (1) Annualised cost of equity estimates generated at 12/2008 from the total risk premium.…”
Section: Average Returns In the Sub-saharan African Marketsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The date per Table IV can be represented in a 3 × 3 matrix. Table V compares the emphasis companies place on disclosures with respondents’ view on the perceived importance of those disclosures (Gold et al , 2012; Correia et al , 2013; Naynar, 2016). The most notable perception gaps involve C 1 , C 2 , C 3 and C 8 , whereas less material differences are reported for C 7 , C 9 , C 10 and C 11 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%