Advertisement

Does tax convexity matter for risk? A dynamic study of tax asymmetry and equity beta

  • Adrian C. H. Lei
  • Martin H. Y. Yick
  • Keith S. K. Lam
Original Research

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of tax convexity on firms’ market risk, where tax convexity measures the progressivity of firms’ tax function. We examine the relation between equity beta and tax convexity based on a standard contingent-claims model, in which firms face nonlinear tax schedules. We verify that in the presence of default and growth options, the effect of tax convexity on beta is significant and depends on several countervailing forces. Tax convexity has a direct, positive effect on beta, as well as two indirect countereffects through default and growth options. The overall effect is ambiguous and quantitatively significant. As asymmetric tax schedules are used in most countries, assuming a linear tax schedule in the valuation framework may misestimate beta and thus fail to assess risk accurately. Our theoretical model shows that tax convexity should be taken into consideration when estimating equity beta.

Keywords

Equity beta Tax convexity Growth option Default option Contingent-claim model 

JEL Classification

G30 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank an anonymous referee and the editor (Lee, Cheng-Few) for their valuable suggestions, which greatly improved the paper. We thank Deng Jie for her excellent research assistance. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the University of Macau.

References

  1. Auerbach AJ (1986) The dynamic effects of tax law asymmetries. Rev Econ Stud 53(1):205–225Google Scholar
  2. Badrinath SG, Chatterjee S (1993) Systematic risk estimation in the presence of large and many outliers. Rev Quant Finance Account 3(1):5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chance D (1982) Evidence on a simplified model of systematic risk. Financial Manag 11(3):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen KC, Cheng D, Hite GL (1986) Systematic risk and market power: an application of Tobins’ q. Q Rev Econ Bus 26(3):58–72Google Scholar
  5. Chiou WJP, Lee A, Lee CF (2009) Variation in stock return risks: an international comparison. Rev Pac Basin Financial Mark Policies 12(2):245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung KH, Charoenwong C (1991) Investment options, asset in place, and the risk of stocks. Financial Manag 20(3):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixit A, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferguson MF, Shockley RL (2003) Equilibrium anomalies. J Finance 58(6):2549–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gomes J, Kogan L, Zhang L (2003) Equilibrium cross-section of returns. J Political Econ 114(4):693–732Google Scholar
  10. Graham J, Harvey C (2001) The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field. J Financial Econ 60(2–3):187–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham JR, Smith CW (1999) Tax incentives to hedge. J Finance 54(6):2241–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill NC, Stone BK (1980) Accounting betas, systematic operating risk, and financial leverage: a risk-composition approach to the determinants of systematic risk. J Financial Quant Anal 15(3):595–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong G, Sarkar S (2007) Equity systematic risk (beta) and its determinants. Contemp Account Res 24(2):423–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacKie-Mason JK (1990) Some nonlinear tax effects on asset values and investment decisions under uncertainty. J Public Econ 42(3):301–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mandelker G, Rhee SG (1984) The impact of the degrees of operating and financial leverage on systematic risk of common stock. J Financial Quant Anal 19(1):45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayer C (1986) Corporation tax, finance and the cost of capital. Rev Econ Stud 53(1):93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merton R (1974) On the pricing of corporate debt: the risk structure of interest rates. J Finance 29(2):449–470Google Scholar
  18. Miles J (1986) Growth options and the real determinants of systematic risk. J Bus Finance Account 13(1):95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financial Econ 5(2):147–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nance DR, Smith CW, Smithson CW (1993) On the determinants of corporate hedging. J Finance 48(1):267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarkar S (2008) Can tax convexity be ignored in corporate financing decisions? J Bank Finance 32(7):1310–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shalit H, Yitzhaki S (2002) Estimating Beta. Rev Quant Finance Account 18(2):95–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tufano P (1998) Agency costs of corporate risk management. Financial Manag 27(1):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian C. H. Lei
    • 1
  • Martin H. Y. Yick
    • 2
  • Keith S. K. Lam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Finance and Business Economics, Faculty of Business AdministrationUniversity of MacauMacauChina
  2. 2.Department of Finance and Insurance, Faculty of BusinessLingnan University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations