A critical review of the literature on firm-level theories on ship investment

Girgin, Sinem Celik; Karlis, Thanasis; Nguyen, Hong-Oanh Article A critical review of the literature on firm-level theories on ship investment International Journal of Financial Studies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Girgin, Sinem Celik; Karlis, Thanasis; Nguyen, Hong-Oanh (2018) : A critical review of the literature on firm-level theories on ship investment, International Journal of Financial Studies, ISSN 2227-7072, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs6010011 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/195677 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ International Journal of Financial Studies Article A Critical Review of the Literature on Firm-Level Theories on Ship Investment Sinem Celik Girgin * ID , Thanasis Karlis ID and Hong-Oanh Nguyen Department of Maritime and Logistics Management, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Newnham 7248, Australia; [email protected] (T.K.); [email protected] (H.-O.N.) *Correspondence: sinem.celikgir[email protected], Tel. +61-045-066-5916 Received: 28 November 2017; Accepted: 17 January 2018; Published: 19 January 2018 Abstract: The maritime industry is one of those rare industries that are both highly international integrated to international trade and also highly capital intensive dependent on substantial investment amount. In the literature, ship investments have not been widely examined through the firm-level investment theories to explore the link between investment level and asset price valuation. The general trend in the literature of ship investments is to analyse the relationship among the shipping markets (newbuilding, second-hand, freight rate and scrap) and their impact on asset price valuation, the timing of investments and market entry and exit conditions. In this paper, we extensively reviewed the literature of firm-level investment theories and ship investments. We showed that the application of firm-level investment theories to the ship investments is confined to the basic investment valuation models, such as Net Present Value and Real Option Analysis. Ship investments need to be examined by firm-level investment theories to define firm/industry value maximization level within the approach of the solid investment theories. Keywords: investment theories; microeconomics; ship investments; maritime industry JEL Classification: G11; G3; L2; O12 1. Introduction Business investments in the fixed capital have a crucial role in a nation’s industrial and economic growth. Nowadays, the world average of the gross fixed capital formation corresponds to about 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 1 Its contribution to the economy is not confined to the GDP. Investments facilitate the growth of factors of production both in physical and human capital stocks (Barro and Martin 2004;Uzawa 1965). Furthermore, the relationship between investment and factors of production is assumed to be bidirectional. As the firm continues to invest, the returns increase since new knowledge and technology are discovered (Arrow 1962). The motivation behind the investment and therefore its contribution to the nation’s economy is closely linked to the growth of international trade which gives the opportunity to maximise the wealth of a nation by discovering or opening up new markets. The fact that 90% of the world’s trade is carried by sea puts the maritime industry in a critical role as a bridge to the markets of the international trade (UNCTAD 2016). The link between maritime industry and the economy has been emphasised by researchers (Harlaftis and Kostelenos 2012;Kang et al. 2016), and Cheng (1979) notes that the maritime transportation can be seen as a phase of production which is indispensable to economic progress. The shipping industry as being a vital chain of economy and trade, the economic structure of the industry has also received increasing attention in the literature. The economics of shipping transport 1The World Bank website visited online at 09/10/17 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.GDI.FTOT.ZS. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11; doi:10.3390/ijfs6010011 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijfs Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 2 of 19 have been studied by various scholars (Buckley 2008;Karakitsos and Varnavides 2014;Metaxas 1971; Stopford 2009;Talley 2011;Zannetos 1966), and they have contributed to the literature by exploring the economics of shipping markets (newbuilding, second-hand, freight and scrap markets), freight fluctuations and the interrelationship between the markets. Mostly, ship investments have been studied through the market analysis perspective rather than through the application of firm-level investment theories. While there are numerous sources on the macroeconomics of the maritime industry, on the microeconomic level and in particular, on the firm-level investment approach, the literature is very scarce. The empirical research to explain the investment decision in the new or second-hand ships by existing ship owners or new entrants is rare and sporadic. From that perspective, there is an empty field in the literature to be filled regarding the interpretation of investors’ decision on ships whether new or second-hand and ship price valuation in the market with the application of firm-level investment theories. Ship investments in the literature started receiving increasing attention by researchers from the 1950s as a consequence of data availability and the role of shipping during globalisation. This inference brings the question which as to why the shipping industry has been absent from mainstream research in economics and economic history, despite having a very long and fascinating contribution in the world history (Paine 2014). The absence of shipping industry from mainstream research is vividly noted by Harlaftis et al. (2012) that note that it is common to neglect the service sector in economic and historical research. Studies of the emergence of modern economic growth in industrialised economies usually focus on manufacturing, while seldom emphasising the importance of the service sector activities. Additionally, the maritime industry has been absent from mainstream research due to its inherent international character, which blurs the links to individual economies. The product of shipping, sea transport, takes place beyond national boundaries, and its income is earned abroad, removed from the economic structures of a specific country. It is indicative that economists analysing national economies have classified shipping income as “invisible earnings”. The third reason for the invisibility of the business of shipping is that it is “intangible”, and its absence from the core of economic analysis mirrors the situation of many other service industries. Finally, even the participants in the industry would like to remain “invisible”. Indeed, some of the most prominent ship owners created elaborate organisational structures with the aim to obscure questions of asset ownership and strategies. In the literature, there are five mainstream firm-level investment theories: accelerator, expected profit, liquidity, neoclassical and Q theory of investment, which apply to the shipping industry. The firm-level investment theories seem to have stagnated after the last quarter of 20th century. 2 In particular, investment theories between the 1900s and 1970s have taken a substantial role in the literature and showed significant progress. However, after the 1970s, the development of new investment theories has slowed down, and most of the subsequent studies dealt with the introduction of a new approach to existing theories, rather than suggesting a different theoretical approach. Some economists, such as Chang (2014) and McCloskey (2002,2006), argue that the innovative growth process of economic thought slowed down in the 21st century. The review of the five major firm-level investment theories, provided in the following section, highlights that most of the investment theories deal with determinants of investments under the assumptions of either instantaneous adjustment or distributed lag structure which is not related to any optimisation process. The Qmodel seems to be the only exception which contains a theoretical foundation to allow a study of investment determinants by the principles of the economic relationships. This paper provides a critical review of the five main firm-level investment theories and the literature on ship investments. Notably, the literature on ship investments has focused on the review 2 Besides five major firm level investment theories, time series investment model derived by Kopcke (2001) where the model considers the trends and cycles evident in recent experience which are sufficiently stable to describe the course of the investment in the future. The model is formulated by as It=∑n i=1aiIt−1+∑n i=0biQt−1 ,Iis investment, Qis output. However, the model has not been widely applied by other scholars. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 3 of 19 of the ship investment decision making with a particular focus on the choice between new and second-hand ships and ship price valuation. The primary aim of this paper is to find a research gap and to justify a new type of method to be used to assess ship investment. Considering the aim of this paper, the main features of the five mainstream firm-level investment theories and the ship investment literature are reviewed to discuss the applicability of the firm-level investment theories in the shipping investment decision process. Based on the aim of this paper, following research questions are to be answered in this paper: 1. What are the central assumptions of firm-level investment theories that can affect the application in the shipping industry? 2. Which are the most commonly used methods to research ship investments in the bulk and container shipping? The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2introduces the ownership structure in the container and bulk shipping markets and provides an overview of ship investment in the world. Section 3presents the theoretical approach of the five main firm-level investment theories over the period of the 1910s to 1980s. Section 4elaborates the empirical studies in ship investments under two main categories, Bulk Shipping and Container Shipping after a systematic review of the literature from the 1960s until now. Finally, Section 5reviews the gap in the literature and provide suggestions for the future research. 2. Overview of Ship Investments The bulk and container shipping markets show a different pattern of ownership and therefore investors. The ownership in the container market in terms of container ship capacity includes owned ships by the liner companies and chartered in tonnage from independent ship managers not engaged in the provision of liner services (UNCTAD 2017). The market structure in liner shipping resembles an oligopolistic market structure. Moreover, after the recent mega container-shipping mergers and acquisitions, the degree of market concentration has increased. UNCTAD (2017) reported that as of January 2017, the top 17 carriers collectively controlled 81.2 percent of the global liner capacity, while a year earlier the 20 leading carriers controlled 83.7 percent of the global liner capacity. In the bulk shipping markets, and particularly the tanker market, the ownership structure has significantly changed after the 1950s. While oil companies in the 1950s controlled the majority of tanker ships, in 2000s, the majority of the tanker fleet is controlled by independent owners and a significant percentage of the fleet operates in the spot market (Glen and Christy 2010;Veenstra and Fosse 2006). In the dry bulk market, following the dispersion of state-owned fleets after the collapse of the former Soviet bloc, independent ownership has increased, and the spot charter market has always been a significant percentage. In the literature, there are some studies on containership investments (Fan and Luo 2013;Fan and Yin 2015;Luo et al. 2009) from either firm level or industry level perspective due to firm-level data availability for container shipping companies. However, the studies in bulk shipping are confronted with low availability of firm-level data. Therefore, industry-level data is mostly used in studies on the bulk shipping (Alizadeh and Nomikos 2007;Merikas et al. 2008;Tsolakis et al. 2003). Depending on data availability, firm-level investment theories can be applied on industry level in bulk shipping and on firm and industry level in container shipping. In the context of ship supply growth, in long-term, the shipping industry receives the increasing attention from investors along with the growing world trade. However, it shows a highly volatile trend in the short run due to the effect of external economic shocks and regional disputes. According to UNCTAD (2017), the order book of the dry bulk sector has reached a peak level and increased from 75 million dead-weight tons (dwt) in 2007 to 322 million dwt in 2011. Similar peak levels are recorded in the oil tanker sector during 2006 and 2009 with an increase from 97 million dwt to 192 million dwt. The bulk shipping, both dry and wet bulk, have witnessed a sharp decrease as a consequence Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 4 of 19 of the Global Financial Crisis, 2008 (GFC). However, the order book of container shipping has been less affected from GFC and reached a peak level of 79 million dwt, in 2008. In 2016, the order book of container ships reached 43 million dwt. In addition, to the slowdown in the order book, demolition activities have increased recently. In 2016, the shipbuilding activity contracted by 1.7 percent, while ship scrapping increased by 25.7 percent (UNCTAD 2017). The recovery process in the ship investments has not shown a substantial increase after GFC which is, in fact, an expected outcome since global economic growth is still in the recovery process. The World Economic Outlook Report of IMF (2017) reported that the global growth rate is still far below the expectations and the recovery has not been completed yet. While the global economic activities showed an upswing move in 2017 and there are definite expectations for 2018, growth remains weak in many countries, and inflation is below target in most advanced economies. 3. Firm-Level Investment Theories The fundamentals of the firm-level investment theory go back to Keynes (1936) and Fisher (1930). They both argued that investments are made until the present value of expected future revenues is equal to the opportunity cost of capital. Fisher (1930) primarily conceptualised the central concept of neoclassical investment theory which is the maximisation of the present value of the firm, introduced the equation of Net Present Value (NPV) in the book of “The Rate of Interest”. The investment is expected to produce future cash flows, C(t)and the net present value can then be written as: NPV = T ∑ t=1 Ct (1+r)t−C0, (1) where, Ct is net cash inflow during the period t, C0 is total initial investment costs and ris the opportunity cost of capital (discount rate). As long as the expected return on investment, abbreviated as i, is above the opportunity cost of capital (discount rate), r, then the investment will be worthwhile. In case of the cost of opportunity cost is equal to the expected return on investment, then NPV will be equal to zero. The expected return on investment, i, is equivalent to Keynes’ marginal efficiency of capital and Fisher’s internal rate of return. NPV and Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) are well known and widely applied analysing tools in investment decision-making process of the firms. A project can be accepted when the value of the NPV is greater than or equal to 0. However, the DCF is a static tool of analysis and ignores future uncertainty likely to occur that can negatively affect future cash flows. This implies that the DCF analysis does not comply with real-world dynamic interactions and the highly risky and uncertain investment environment of the shipping industry asks to consider an alternative method to evaluate investment alternatives. As a alternative to the static DCF method, the dynamic Real Option Analysis (ROA) method was introduced by Dixit and Pindyck (1994) and is widely applied in the shipping industry (Bendall and Stent 2005;Bendall and Stent 2007;Dikos 2008;Dikos and Marcus 2003;Dixit and Pindyck 1994; Gkochari 2015). The ROA is treated as an alternative method to manage capital budgeting process under uncertainty and irreversibility with additional options which can be exchanged with low-risk income streams associated with one strategy with that of another strategy (Bendall and Stent 2007). More recently, Balliauw (2017) applied ROA in container shipping to analyse the performance in the shipping markets of a theoretically developed model to market entry and exit decision of ship owners. The author found that the theoretical model, ROA, conforms to the real market values when the market is steady. However, in case of fluctuations of in sale and purchase prices, then the model needs to be realigned by new market values. Following the basics of investment evaluation tools, we will now focus on the accelerator theory which is the oldest of the firm-level investment theories. This will be followed by the profit theory, the liquidity theory, the neoclassical theory and the Qtheory. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 5 of 19 3.1. Accelerator Theory The simple accelerator theory was introduced by Clark (1917) and in the simple accelerator model, the actual capital stock Kt adjusts instantaneously to the desired capital stock, which is formulated as Kt=K∗ t . Refer to principles of accelerator theory of investment behaviour; the desired capital is proportional to the output which is constant, µ: K∗ t=µYt(2) The equation follows that net investment, Int which is the increase in the actual capital stock can be specified as: Int =Kt−Kt−1=K∗ t−K∗ t−1=µ(Yt−Yt−1)(3) Equation (3) demonstrates the link between investment and changes in output, which expresses that change in output might lead to an accelerated change in investment. The model assumes that a complete and instantaneous adjustment of the capital stock. As being the earliest model, the accelerator theory was exposed to many criticisms by scholars (Chenery 1952;Koyck 1954;Tinbergen 1938) who developed the flexible accelerator model. The first criticism was that the model was restricted by the unrealistic assumption of instantaneous adjustment of the capital stock. The second, as econometric results show that the estimated value of the parameter µ is much smaller than the observed ratio of capital stock to output. The third criticism was that in the simple accelerator model, the prices of capital equipment, wages, taxes and interest rates were ignored (Baddeley 2002). In response to the drawbacks of accelerator model, the flexible accelerator model was formulated by Goodwin (1948) and Chenery (1952). In particular, Chenery (1952) added reaction lags in the capital stock. These lags show the time gap between changes in demand and new investment activity. These lags are able to capture the delays between the investment decision and the investment expenditures. The actual level of capital in period twas denoted by Kt and the desired level by K∗ t , capital is adjusted toward its desired level by a certain proportion of the discrepancy between desired and actual capital in each period, which is formulated as follows: Kt−Kt−1=λ(K∗ t−Kt−1)(4) where 0 < λ<1 is a parameter, this equation is from Koyck (1954) distribution lag function. To obtain investment function, investment variable inserted into the Equation (4) which states that changes in the stock capital level equal gross investment less depreciation: It=λ(K∗ t−Kt−1)+δKt−1(5) where Itis gross investment, and δis the depreciation rate. The main difference between simple accelerator model and flexible accelerator model is flexible accelerator includes in lags in capital stock which avoids the unrealistic assumption of instantaneous adjustment of the capital stock and corresponds to the dynamic structure of investment. 3.2. Expected Profit Theory The expected profit theory emerged as a subsidiary hypothesis under the accelerator theory (Tsiang 1951). Significant contributions to profit theory were made by Tinbergen (1939), Kalecki (1949), Klein (1951) and Grunfeld (1960). The expected profit model was developed based on the approach is that the investment decisions are made by considering the present value of expected future profits (Kuh 1963). Tinbergen (1939) has clarified the concept of profit theory as: “There is fairly good evidence that the fluctuations in investment activity are in the main determined by the fluctuations in profits earned in the industry as a whole some months earlier” (Tinbergen 1939). However, the expected profit model was later criticised by Grunfeld (1960) by adding the current profit into the flexible accelerator model and Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 6 of 19 found that the partial correlation between profits and investment was insignificant. In the aftermath, the author states that the results did not confirm that profits are a good measure of expected profits or that they tend to lead investment expenditures. He added that; “The observed simple correlation between investment and profits seems to be due to the fact that profits are just another measure of the capital stock of the firm and one that is in most cases inferior to the measure that we have constructed.” (Grunfeld 1960). In Grunfeld (1960)‘s theory, desired capital is proportional to the market value of the firm in the securities market. K∗ t=α1+α2Vt(6) where Vt is the firm’s market value, α1 and α2 are parameters. Combining Equation (5) into the distribution lag function (4), then following equation produced: It=β1+β2Vt+β3Kt−1(7) The expected profit model has some advantages and disadvantages to apply in business models. The main advantages of the theory is that which recognises the role of expected profit in the investment decision. Besides, the market value of the firm was measured as the market value of stocks outstanding plus the book value of debt including short-term liabilities. The expected profit theory is the first model used the market value of the firm in analysing the investment behaviour which inspired to create Qtheory. 3.3. Cash Flow/Liquidity Theory The liquidity theory was developed as an alternative to the criticism of the accelerator investment theory and the expected profit model. The theory was proposed by Meyer and Kuh (1957), Anderson (1964), Kuh (1963), Meyer and Glauber (1964) and Duesenberry (1958). The main argument of the liquidity theory is that cash flow dominates the level of investment and when internal funds are exhausted, the schedule of the supply funds rises sharply to keep the capital level at the desired point (Jorgenson and Siebert 1968). In the liquidity theory of investment behaviour, desired capital is proportional to liquidity, K∗ t=αLt(8) where αis the desired ratio of capital to the flow of internal funds available for investment. In order to obtain the investment function, Vt in Equation (7), expected profit model, can be replaced by FCt, then produced Equation (9): It=β1+β2FCt+β3Kt−1(9) The cash flow-liquidity model reflects both the firm’s internal funds and the profit levels (Kuh 1963). Therefore, it is not an alternative to the expected profit model. Rather it might be seen as augmenting the expected profit model by incorporating the cost of investment funds. However, the main drawbacks of the liquidity model are related to constraints not taken under consideration such as transaction costs in the financial markets and the fact that factors such as the interest rates and the prices of equipment and machinery are ignored. 3.4. Neoclassical Theory The neoclassical theory of investment theory is based on optimal capital accumulation (Jorgenson and Siebert 1968) which is extensively studied by Jorgenson (1963,1967,1971). The investment theory is founded on the assumption that capital accumulation is based on the objective of maximising the utility of a stream of consumption. The main principle of the theory of optimal capital accumulation meets the basic objective when: “The firm maximizes the utility of a consumption stream subject to a production function relating the flow of output to flows of labor and capital Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 7 of 19 services.” as Jorgenson (1967) stated. The net investment is equal to total investment less replacement. There is a connection between the capital stock K(t) and the rate of investment I(t) which takes the form as: . K(t)=I(t)−δK(t)(10) The Equation (10) states that the rate of change of the capital stock, . K(t) , is equal to the purchase of new capital, I(t) , less the amount of capital depreciation, δK(t) . The investment function with lag distribution suggested by Jorgenson (1963,1967), given in Equation (11): It=w0K∗ t−K∗ t−1+w1K∗ t−1−K∗ t−2−α1(It−1−δKt−2)+δKt−1(11) Compared to previous models, the neoclassical model has some advantages. First, the net worth maximisation model defines the link between investment and expected profits of firms. Second, the neoclassical theory of investment primarily identified the user cost of capital, which was not considered in previous models. Additionally, the user cost of capital concepts has inspired the Qmodel to include adjustment cost function. Lastly, the neoclassical model consists of many other variables such as tax, interest rate, output level; therefore it is easier to measure their impact on investment. However, the model is subject to criticisms. First, output has still a substantial effect as a determinant of investment, compared to the user cost of capital which has a modest effect on investment function (Chirinko 1993). Second, the investment decision process is considered as dynamic instead of being static (Kuh 1963), and the Jorgenson (1971) attempted to modify the neoclassical model subject to dynamic optimisation. However, the first order conditions used to derive the optimal level of capital stock stayed static. 3.5. Tobin-Q Theory The Qtheory of investment has been developed by Brainard and Tobin (1968) and Tobin (1969,1978), but the foundation of the model goes back Keynes (1936), he stated that: “Daily revaluations of the Stock Exchange inevitably exert a decisive influence on the rate of current investment. For there is no sense in building up a new enterprise at a cost greater than that at which a similar existing enterprise can be purchased; whilst there is an inducement to spend on a new project what may seem an extravagant sum, if it can be floated off on the Stock Exchange at an immediate profit.” (Keynes 1936). The model proposed that investment expenditures are positively related to average Q, which has defined as the ratio of the financial value of the firm to the replacement cost of its existing capital stock (Chirinko 1993). In particular, Qmodel emerged to address two fundamental problems of neoclassical theory and accelerator theory of investment. The first problem was the capital adjustment process which was initially accepted as instantaneous and complete in each period, in the neoclassical model and Qmodel, the adjustment cost is described as a strictly convex function. The convex adjustment cost was initially proposed by Jorgenson (1963), Eisner and Strotz (1963), Lucas (1967) and Gould (1968), which was incorporating the adjustment cost function into firm value maximisation function of the neoclassical model. The second problem was that the role of expectations in future investment opportunities was not evaluated by the previous studies and Brainard and Tobin (1968) and Tobin (1969) worked on this problem. They suggested that investment is made until the market value of assets is equal to the replacement cost of assets (Eklund 2010). Then the investment Equation (6) introduced as below: I Kt =β[Qt−1] + ut(12) where β= 1 /α , ut is an error term, and Qis called “marginal Q”, which equals the ratio of the shadow price to the replacement unit cost of capital. The Qvalue captures the effect of an additional dollar of capital on present value of profits, therefore, the firm decides to increase the capital stock if Qis high and reduce the capital stock if Qis low (Romer 2006). The marginal Qvariable is unobservable, and therefore its data is not available. To solve it, Tobin (1969) replaces the marginal Qvariable with the average Q, which is the ratio of the firm’s market Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 8 of 19 value to its replacement cost. Use of average Qin place of marginal Q, since investment regression is likely to suffer from misspecification. Hayashi (1982) worked on this problem and stated that marginal Qand average Qis identically equal, qm=Qa= 1, if the firm is a price taker (perfect competition), and their production and installation functions are linear homogeneous. If this condition is violated, then investment equation is likely to be biased. Application of Qmodel to various industries has risen a question as to how to calculate Qvariable in practice. There are some different calculation methods offered by various scholars based on the specific research field where Qratio has been used. Peters and Taylor (2017) worked on intangible capital and investment and computed the Qvariable as the ratio of the total investment includes the investment in physical and intangible capital to the total capital stock includes physical and intangible capital stocks. Furthermore, Hall (2001) defined the Qvariable as the ratio of the value of ownership claims on the firm, less the book value of inventories, to the replacement cost of equipment and structure. The role of Qtheory was widely questioned by scholars, and its explanatory power in investment relation was accepted poor (Bond and Van Reenen 2007;Caballero et al. 1995). However, more recently Kilponen and Verona (2016) studied on the Qtheory of investment by the frequency domain on the U.S. data of corporate fixed private non-residential investment in equipment and structures from 1972 to 2007. They reinterpreted Qtheory based on Rua (2011) study, a wavelet approach to forecasting. In contrast to the literature, they found that Qmodel might be better explaining short-term relations rather than long-term ones by considering frequency relationship between Qand investment. Moreover, they found that using the wavelet approach and the proxies for Qsignificantly increases the predictive power of the investment equation. In some research, extended Qmodel of investment decision is integrated into dynamic risk management analysis with financial tools. These showed that for the firm’s investment opportunities and when there are no fixed costs of investment the marginal Qis a more accurate measure than average Q (Bolton et al. 2011). Moreover, Qratio, itself, applied to measure the performance of the airline industry (Li et al. 2004) and proved that Qratio captures additional dimensions of the airline performances compared to other financial measures. More recently, Skjeggedal (2012) applied Qtheory into Norwegian housing from 1992 to 2011, where the value of Norwegian housing, Q, is defined as the ratio of housing prices to the construction costs of new housing and housing is defined as the aggregate housing stock in Norway’s national accounts. The author stated that the value of housing is significantly related to housing investment according to the Qtheory model of housing. 4. Empirical Research in Ship Investments The shipping industry is usually categorised under four markets: the newbuilding market, the freight market, the sale and purchase market, and the demolition market (Stopford 2009) and each market is further broken down according to the principal vessel types: Dry and Wet Bulk, Container, General Cargo and others. The literature on ship investments has mostly examined two primary markets, newbuilding and second-hand markets, which are very intensive and active investment markets (Tsolakis et al. 2003); and their interactions with freight markets. In this paper, the empirical studies on ship investments have been reviewed within this perspective (newbuilding, second-hand and freight markets relationship) and they are mainly grouped under two main sectors: Bulk and Container Shipping Markets. 4.1. Bulk Shipping Market 4.1.1. Dry Bulk Shipping Market The recent empirical studies in the bulk or container sectors mostly focused on specific vessel types; they tend to avoid generalising the research outcomes on the vessels types since they have structural differences. However, some early researchers examined country level investments for all Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 15 of 19 5. Conclusions and Future Works The paper elaborated two distinctive subjects: the theoretical review of the firm-level investment theories and ship investment literature. The first part was undertaken to provide the theoretical review of the firm-level investment theories along with their main features and critiques. The second part was constructed to assess the literature on ship investments, in particular, to reveal existing literature in the context of newbuilding, second-hand and freight market relationships by two main vessel types, Bulk and Container Shipping. The firm-level investment theories have shown continuous advancement to identify the maximum level of firm value by dissolving the drawbacks of the previous investment models over the period of the 1900s to 1970s. Indeed, five mainstream theories; accelerator, expected profit, liquidity, neoclassical and Qtheory, provided that most of the investment theories deal with determinants of investments by assuming either instantaneous adjustment or distributed lag structure which is not related to any optimisation process. The latest and advanced Qtheory is the only exception which contains theoretical foundations to allow a study of investment determinants in accordance with economic relationship. This allows gathering more plausible output by capturing broader information on investment and economic relationship. The firm-level investments in fixed capital are central to the understanding of economic activities. The considerable fluctuation in investment expenditures can lead to aggregate fluctuations in the industry and the economy. Insufficient firm level investments closely link to reduced long-run industrial growth, and this might lead to waste of sources and oversupply problems in the short term. The firm-level investment decision is thus a crucial topic on steady industrial growth along with economic growth. To interpret the firm level investment decision within empirical approach by applying investment theories to either firm-level studies or industry level studies is crucial in the context of maximizing the firm/industry value by reaching optimum level and asset price valuation link. In the literature, firm-level investment theories recently and previously applied to various industries; such as manufacturing, finance, banking, housing and airline; and most of the studies proved that the explanatory power of investment theories could not be ignored. In the shipping industry, the application of firm-level investment theories is not widely adopted. The studies in the ship investment literature mostly analysed the relationship among the shipping markets (newbuilding, second-hand, freight rate and scrap) and their individual/multiple impacts on asset price valuation, the timing of investments and market entry and exit conditions. Although the industry is highly capital intensive and attracts a high amount of investment, insufficient research has been undertaken focusing on maximising the firm/industry value by reaching optimum level and asset price valuation. The existing firm-level investment theories require adaptation to explain the investment decision by ship owners. Particularly given the structure of the bulk and container sectors, the decision might be driven more by expectations of future market conditions rather than asset prices and financial market conditions. This is supported by the existing studies that mostly focus on asset prices and the ratio of new and second-hand ships which is an indication of future expectations, rather than an evaluation of firm’s value. In the context of existing literature in ship investments, further research should be undertaken to investigate the decision making process on ship investments through firm-level investment theories to examine the industry with the microeconomic approach. Utilising investment theories might produce comprehensive findings to define firm-level value maximisation within the approach of the robust investment theories. Therefore, each firm might take advantage of defining the maximum level of firm value to manage investment funds in the long run. The extensive theoretical foundation of firm-level investment theories and the literature of ship investments, the application of Qmodel in shipping industry might be more feasible. The Qvariable for shipping industry might be defined as the ratio of existing ship prices to the construction costs of new building stand for the ratio of the firm’s market value to its replacement cost. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 16 of 19 Author Contributions: S.C.G., T.K. and H.-O.N. conceived and S.C.G. wrote the paper; TK and H.-O.N. contributed to the literature review; S.C.G and TK revised and edited the paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Alizadeh, Amir, and Nikos Nomikos. 2006. Trading Strategies in the Market for Tankers. Maritime Policy & Management 33: 119–40. Alizadeh, Amir, and Nikos Nomikos. 2007. Investment Timing and Trading Strategies in the Sale and Purchase Market for Ships. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 41: 126–43. [CrossRef] Anderson, William Henry Locke. 1964. Corporate Finance and Fixed Investment: An Econometric Study. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies 29: 155–73. [CrossRef] Baddeley, Catherine. 2002. Investment in an Uncertain World. Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business 5: 1–21. Balliauw, Matteo. 2017. An Analysis of Entry and Exit Decisions in Shipping Markets under Uncertainty. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 9: 527–39. [CrossRef] Barro, Robert J., and Xavier Sala-i Martin. 2004. Economic Growth, 2nd ed.London: The IMT Press. Bendall, Helen B, and Alan F Stent. 2005. Ship Investment under Uncertainty: Valuing a Real Option on the Maximum of Several Strategies. Maritime Economics & Logistics 7: 19–35. Bendall, Helen B., and Alan F. Stent. 2007. Maritime Investment Strategies with a Portfolio of Real Options. Maritime Policy & Management 34: 441–52. Bolton, Patrick, Hui Chen, and Neng Wang. 2011. A Unified Theory of Tobin’s Q, Corporate Investment, Financing, and Risk Management. The Journal of Finance 66: 1545–78. [CrossRef] Bond, Stephen, and John Van Reenen. 2007. Microeconometric Models of Investment and Employment. In Handbook of Econometrics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, vol. 6, pp. 4417–98. Brainard, William, and James Tobin. 1968. Pitfalls in Financial Model Building. The American Economic Review 58: 99–122. Broeze, Frank. 2002. The Globalisation of the Oceans: Containerisation from the 1950s to the Present. St. John’s: International Maritime Economic History Association. Buckley, James J. 2008. The Business of Shipping. Baltimore: Cornell Maritime Press. Caballero, Ricardo, Eduardo Engel, John Haltiwanger, Michael Woodford, and Robert Hall. 1995. Plant-Level Adjustment and Aggregate Investment Dynamics. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 1–54. [CrossRef] Celik Girgin, Sinem, Hong-Oanh Nguyen, and Thanasis Karlis. 2017. Revisiting the Effect of Financial Development on Economic Growth after 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Advances in Economics and Business 5: 456–65. [CrossRef] Chang, Ha-Joon. 2014. Economics: The User’s Guide. London: Penguin Group. Chenery, Hollis. 1952. Overcapacity and the Acceleration Principle. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 20: 1–28. [CrossRef] Cheng, Philip C. 1979. Financial Management in the Shipping Industry. Baltimore: Cornell Maritime Pr/Tidewater Pub. Chirinko, Robert S. 1993. Business Fixed Investment Spending: Modeling Strategies, Empirical Results, and Policy Implications. Journal of Economic Literature 31: 1875–911. Clark, John. 1917. Business Acceleration and the Law of Demand: A Technical Factor in Economic Cycles. Journal of Political Economy 25: 217–35. [CrossRef] Dai, Lei, Hao Hu, and Di Zhang. 2015. An Empirical Analysis of Freight Rate and Vessel Price Volatility Transmission in Global Dry Bulk Shipping Market. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 2: 353–61. [CrossRef] Dikos, George. 2008. Real Options Econometrics for Aggregate Tanker Investment Decisions. International Journal of Ocean Systems Management 1: 31–44. [CrossRef] Dikos, George, and Henry Marcus. 2003. The Term Structure of Second-Hand Prices: A Structural Partial Equilibrium Model. Maritime Economics & Logistics 5: 251–67. Dixit, Avinash K, and Robert S Pindyck. 1994. Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 17 of 19 Duesenberry, James. 1958. Business Cycles and Economic Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Eisner, Robert, and Robert Strotz. 1963. Commission on Money and Credit, Impacts of Monetary Policy. In Determinants of Business Investment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Eklund, Johan E. 2010. Q-Theory of Investment and Earnings Retentions—Evidence from Scandinavia. Empirical Economics 39: 793–813. [CrossRef] Ericson, Richard, and Ariel Pakes. 1995. Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Framework for Empirical Work. The Review of Economic Studies 62: 53–82. [CrossRef] Fan, Lixian, and Meifeng Luo. 2013. Analyzing Ship Investment Behaviour in Liner Shipping. Maritime Policy & Management 40: 511–33. Fan, Lixian, and Jingbo Yin. 2015. Analysis of Structural Changes in Container Shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics 18: 174–91. Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest Rates. New York: The Macmillan Company. Gkochari, Christiana C. 2015. Optimal Investment Timing in the Dry Bulk Shipping Sector. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 79: 102–9. [CrossRef] Glen, David, and Steve Christy. 2010. The Tanker Market: Current Structure and Economic Analysis. In Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business. Edited by Costas Grammenos. London: LLP. Goodwin, Richard. 1948. Secular and Cyclical Aspects of the Multiplier and the Accelerator. In Income, Employment and Public Policy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Gould, John. 1968. Adjustment Costs in the Theory of Investment of the Firm. The Review of Economic Studies 35: 47–55. [CrossRef] Greenwood, Robin, and Samuel G Hanson. 2015. Waves in Ship Prices and Investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130: 55–109. [CrossRef] Grunfeld, Yehuda. 1960. The Determinants of Corporate Investment. In The Demand for Durable Goods. Edited by A.C. Harberger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 211–66. Hall, Robert. 2001. The Stock Market and Capital Accumulation. American Economic Review 91: 1185–202. [CrossRef] Harlaftis, Gelina, and George Kostelenos. 2012. International Shipping and National Economic Growth: Shipping Earnings and the Greek Economy in the Nineteenth Century. The Economic History Review 65: 1403–27. [CrossRef] Harlaftis, Gelina, Stig Tenold, and Jesús M. Valdaliso. 2012. Epilogue: A Key Industry or an Invisible Industry? In The World’s Key Industry History and Economics of World Shipping. Edited by Gelina Harlaftis, Stig Tenold and Jesus Valdaliso. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 263–72. Hayashi, Fumio. 1982. Tobin’s Marginal Q and Average Q: A Neoclassical Interpretation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 50: 213–24. [CrossRef] IMF. 2017. World Economic Outlook. Washington: International Monetary Fund. Jorgenson, Dale. 1963. Capital Theory and Investment Behavior. The American Economic Review 53: 247–59. Jorgenson, Dale. 1967. The Theory of Investment Behavior. In Determinants of Investment Behavior. Edited by Robert Ferber. New York: NBER. Jorgenson, Dale. 1971. Econometric Studies of Investment Behavior: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature 9: 1111–47. Jorgenson, Dale, and Calvin Siebert. 1968. A Comparison of Alternative Theories of Corporate Investment Behavior. The American Economic Review 58: 681–712. Kalecki, Michael. 1949. A New Approach to the Problem of Business Cycles. The Review of Economic Studies 16: 57–64. [CrossRef] Kalouptsidi, Myrto. 2014. Time to Build and Fluctuations in Bulk Shipping. The American Economic Review 104: 564–608. [CrossRef] Kang, J. Y., Song Kim, Hugh Murphy, and Stig Tenold. 2016. British Financial, Managerial and Technical Assistance in Establishing the Global Shipbuilding Giant, Hyundai Heavy Industries. International Journal of Maritime History 28: 81–101. [CrossRef] Karakitsos, Elias, and Lambros Varnavides. 2014. Maritime Economics: A Macroeconomic Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kavussanos, Manolis. 1996. Price Risk Modelling of Different Size Vessels in the Tanker Industry Using Autoregressive Conditional Heterskedastic (Arch) Models. Logistics and Transportation Review 32: 161–76. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 18 of 19 Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kilponen, Juha, and Fabio Verona. 2016. Testing the Q Theory of Investment in the Frequency Domain. Bank of Finland Research Discussion Paper 32: 1–27. Klein, Lawrence. 1951. Studies in Investment Behavior. In Conference on Business Cycles. New York: NBER. Kopcke, Richard. 2001. The Performance of Traditional Macroeconomic Models of Businesses’ Investment Spending. New England Economic Review 2: 1–39. Koyck, Leendert Marinus. 1954. Distributed Lags and Investment Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Kuh, Edwin. 1963. Capital Stock Growth: A Micro-Econometric Approach. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Li, Michael ZF, Tae H Oum, and Yimin Zhang. 2004. Tobin’s Q and Airline Performances. Public Works Management & Policy 9: 51–65. Lucas, Robert, Jr. 1967. Adjustment Costs and the Theory of Supply. Journal of Political Economy 75: 321–34. [CrossRef] Luo, Meifeng, Lixian Fan, and Liming Liu. 2009. An Econometric Analysis for Container Shipping Market. Maritime Policy & Management 36: 507–23. Markowitz, Harry. 1952. Portfolio Selection. The journal of Finance 7: 77–91. Marlow, Peter B. 1991a. Shipping and Investment Incentives: A Trilogy. Maritime Policy & Management 18: 123–38. Marlow, Peter B. 1991b. Shipping and Investment Incentives: A Trilogy † Part 2. Investment Incentives for Shipping. Maritime Policy & Management 18: 201–16. Marlow, Peter B. 1991c. Shipping and Investment Incentives: A Trilogy † Part 3. The Effectiveness of Investment Incentives for Shipping—the Uk Experience 1950–1987. Maritime Policy & Management 18: 283–311. McCloskey, Deirdre N. 2002. The Secret Sins of Economics. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm. McCloskey, Deirdre N. 2006. Bourgeois Virtue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Merikas, Andreas, Anna Merika, and George Koutroubousis. 2008. Modelling the Investment Decision of the Entrepreneur in the Tanker Sector: Choosing between a Second-Hand Vessel and a Newly Built One. Maritime Policy & Management 35: 433–47. Metaxas, Basil. 1971. The Economics of Tramp Shipping. London: Athlone Press. Meyer, John, and Robert Glauber. 1964. Investment Decisions, Economic Forecasting, and Public Policy. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School. Meyer, John, and Edwin Kuh. 1957. The Investment Decision: An Empirical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Paine, Lincoln. 2014. The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World. New York: Vintage Books. Pakes, Ariel, Michael Ostrovsky, and Steven Berry. 2007. Simple Estimators for the Parameters of Discrete Dynamic Games (with Entry/Exit Examples). The Rand journal of economics 38: 373–99. [CrossRef] Papapostolou, Nikos, Panos Pouliasis, and Ioannis Kyriakou. 2017. Herd Behavior in the Drybulk Market: An Empirical Analysis of the Decision to Invest in New and Retire Existing Fleet Capacity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 104: 36–51. [CrossRef] Peters, Ryan, and Lucian Taylor. 2017. Intangible Capital and the Investment-Q Relation. Journal of Financial Economics 123: 251–72. [CrossRef] Romer, David. 2006. Advanced Macroeconomics. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin. Rua, António. 2011. A Wavelet Approach for Factor-Augmented Forecasting. Journal of Forecasting 30: 666–78. [CrossRef] Skjeggedal, Eli. 2012. The Q Theory Model of Housing: A Macroeconomic Analysis of the Dynamics in the Norwegian Housing Market. Bergen: NORGES HANDELSHØYSKOLE. Stopford, Martin. 2009. Maritime Economics, 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Talley, Wayne K. 2011. The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Tinbergen, Jan. 1938. Statistical Evidence on the Acceleration Principle. Economica 5: 164–76. [CrossRef] Tinbergen, Jan. 1939. Statistical Testing of Business Cycle Theories: Part I: A Method and Its Application to Investment Activity. New York: Agaton Press. Tobin, James. 1969. A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 1: 15–29. [CrossRef] Tobin, James. 1978. Monetary Policies and the Economy: The Transmission Mechanism. Southern economic journal 44: 421–31. [CrossRef] Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018,6, 11 19 of 19 Tsiang, Sho-Chieh. 1951. Accelerator, Theory of the Firm and the Business Cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 65: 325–41. [CrossRef] Tsolakis, S., C. Cridland, and Hercules Haralambides. 2003. Econometric Modelling of Second-Hand Ship Prices. Maritime Economics & Logistics 5: 347–77. UNCTAD. 2016. Review of Maritime Transport. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD. 2017. Review of Maritime Transport. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Uzawa, Hirofimi. 1965. Optimal Technical Change in an Aggregative Model of Economic Growth. International Economic Review 6: 18–31. [CrossRef] Veenstra, Albert W, and Sébastien De La Fosse. 2006. Contributions to Maritime Economics—Zenon S. Zannetos, the Theory of Oil Tankship Rates. Maritime Policy & Management 33: 61–73. Zannetos, Zenon S. 1966. The Theory of Oil Tankship Rates. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).