Pricing Repurchase Promises: Expected Execution and Investor Beliefs
This paper analyzes Chinese stock repurchase announcements to demonstrate that investors price promises based on both the expected delivery derived from current firm characteristics and the subsequent credibility revealed by actual execution relative to those expectations, with the weight of these factors significantly influenced by legal accountability and disclosure liability.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a company decides to buy back its own shares, it is making a promise to the market. It announces a plan to spend money to purchase stock, often after the stock price has already fallen. This announcement usually causes the price to rise, as investors welcome the news that the company is willing to support its value. However, a promise is not the same as a completed action. A company can announce a massive buyback and then buy very little, or it can announce a modest plan and follow through with a large purchase. The central question for investors is how to tell the difference between a hollow promise and a credible one before the money is actually spent, and what the company's actual behavior later reveals about its true intentions. This is the territory of corporate finance, where the value of a statement depends on the likelihood it will be kept, and where the history of a company's past actions helps shape expectations for its future ones.
Researchers set out to understand exactly how investors weigh these factors in the Chinese stock market, analyzing more than ten thousand announcements made between 2010 and 2025. They discovered that the market does not simply react to the size of the promise or the company's past reputation alone. Instead, investors form a specific expectation of how much the company will actually buy, based on the company's current financial health, the terms of the plan, and the state of the market. This "expected execution" acts as a benchmark. When a company announces a buyback, the immediate jump in its stock price is strongly linked to how feasible the plan looks given those current circumstances. A company with plenty of cash and a clear need to buy back shares will see a bigger positive reaction than a company that looks financially stretched, even if both announce the same dollar amount.
The study found that this forward-looking expectation matters more than the company's past track record. While a history of keeping promises is helpful, it is not the main driver of value. A company with a perfect past record but a plan that looks impossible to fulfill today will not get the same boost as a company with a messy past but a plan that looks highly doable right now. The market is looking at the present feasibility of the new plan, not just the historical reputation of the issuer. Once the plan is announced, the researchers tracked what actually happened. They found that if a company buys back more shares than the market expected based on its current situation, the stock price continues to rise in the months that follow, and the company's future earnings reports tend to be better than expected. Conversely, if a company buys back less than expected, long-term investors tend to sell their shares, suggesting they have lost confidence in management's ability or willingness to follow through.
A crucial part of the research involved a specific legal event in China known as the Kangmei judgment, which significantly increased the personal liability of company directors for making false or misleading statements. The researchers used this event to test how accountability changes the way investors value promises. They compared companies that had purchased insurance to protect their directors from lawsuits against those that did not. Before the judgment, the market relied heavily on its own forecasts of what a company would do. After the judgment, the importance of those forecasts dropped significantly for companies without insurance. This suggests that when the legal consequences of lying become severe, investors rely less on their own calculations of feasibility and more on the statement itself, because the statement now carries a heavier weight of personal risk for the people who made it. The study concludes that the value of a corporate promise is not fixed; it shifts depending on what the company is expected to deliver, what it actually does, and how much accountability is attached to the statement.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.