Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act

Dhammika  Dharmapala; C. Fritz  Foley; Kristin J. Forbes

Article | Journal of Finance | June 2011

Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act

by Dhammika Dharmapala, C. Fritz Foley and Kristin J. Forbes

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of the Homeland Investment Act of 2004, which provided a one-time tax holiday for the repatriation of foreign earnings and thereby reduced the cost to U.S. multinationals of accessing a source of internal capital. Lawmakers and lobbyists justified its passage by arguing that it would alleviate financial constraints. This paper's results indicate that repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, domestic employment, or R&D—even for the firms that appeared to be financially constrained or lobbied for the holiday. Instead, estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60 to $0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate that U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.

Keywords: Investment; Performance Effectiveness; Code Law; Taxation; Cost; Capital; Financial Strategy; Research and Development; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Business and Shareholder Relations; United States;

Format: Print

35 pages

SSRN Find at Harvard

Citation:

Dharmapala, Dhammika, C. Fritz Foley, and Kristin J. Forbes. "Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act." Journal of Finance 66, no. 3 (June 2011): 753–787.

In June 2017, Legrand, a global specialist in electrical and digital building infrastructure which was a serial acquirer, announced it had signed an agreement to buy Milestone AV Technologies, a leading designer and manufacturer of branded audio-video products. This case describes Legrand's approach to screening, pursuing, and integrating targets as well as the criteria used to evaluate if a deal is successful.

In 2015, Elaine Paul, CFO of Hulu, and the rest of the senior leadership team, must decide if they should offer a new, advertisement-free subscription service. At the time Hulu distributed a wide variety of content including in season current programing and earned significant revenues from advertising. This choice had strategic implications and required formulating a view on how the video-on-demand industry would evolve. It also had value implications that can be analyzed in a subscriber-valuation model. The owners of Hulu, which included Disney and Fox, would ultimately need to approve whatever decision was made.

In January 2017, the senior leadership team at Edwards Lifesciences were preparing for the quarterly earnings call that would cover the fourth quarter of 2016. They faced questions about what types of information they should disclose on the call, as well as during other key investor relation events that take place throughout the year.

Faculty & Research

Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author