Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Jorgenson, R. Hall (1967)
Tax Policy and Investment BehaviorThe American Economic Review, 57
Bergstresser
Michael Jensen (1986)
Agency Cost of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and TakeoversIndustrial Organization & Regulation eJournal
Merton Miller (1958)
The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of InvestmentThe American Economic Review, 48
R. G. Hubbard (1998)
Capital-market imperfections and investmentJournal of Economic Literature, 36
Charles Hadlock (1998)
Ownership, Liquidity, and InvestmentThe RAND Journal of Economics, 29
O. Lamont (1997)
Cash flow and investment: Evidence from internal capital marketsJournal of Finance, 52
M. C. Jensen (1986)
Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeoversAmerican Economic Review, 76
Owen Lamont (1996)
Cash Flow and Investment: Evidence from Internal Capital MarketsCorporate Finance: Valuation
J. Floyd, Jack Meyer, E. Kuh (1958)
The Investment DecisionSouthern Economic Journal, 24
(2003)
Agency, information, and corporate investment
Kevin Hassett, R. Hubbard (2002)
Tax Policy and Business InvestmentHandbook of Public Economics, 3
R. Hubbard (1997)
Capital-Market Imperfections and InvestmentCorporate Finance: Valuation
E. Fama (1980)
Agency Problems and the Theory of the FirmJournal of Political Economy, 88
J. D. Rauh (2006)
Investment and financing constraints: Evidence from the funding of corporate pension plansJournal of Finance, 61
Joshua Rauh (2006)
Investment and Financing Constraints: Evidence from the Funding of Corporate Pension PlansS&P Global Market Intelligence Research Paper Series
Richardson’s paper is a useful addition to the literature on the relationship between cash flow and investment. His approach to estimating this relationship is a new twist on earlier approaches. Like most of this literature, Richardson finds evidence that firms’ investment decisions are excessively sensitive to current cash flow, suggesting that violations of the Modigliani–Miller assumptions are empirically important. My view is that conceptual and implementation problems beset Richardson’s attempt to identify the specific violation of the Modigliani–Miller assumptions, and his evidence on this second point is not convincing.
Review of Accounting Studies – Springer Journals
Published: May 20, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.