I examine the empirical relation between real flexibility and financial structure. I test whether real flexibility increases debt capacity by lowering default risk and making assets more marketable or decreases debt capacity by facilitating risk shifting and asset substitution. I measure real flexibility as the sensitivity of marginal production and investment decisions to variations in the economic environment. I find that financial leverage is negatively related to production flexibility but positively related to investment flexibility. This split in results suggests that although asset substitution facilitated by investment flexibility can be prevented contractually, risk shifting facilitated by production flexibility is intractable.

I examine the empirical relation between real flexibility and financial structure. I test whether real flexibility increases debt capacity by lowering default risk and making assets more marketable or decreases debt capacity by facilitating risk shifting and asset substitution. I measure real flexibility as the sensitivity of marginal production and investment decisions to variations in the economic environment. I find that financial leverage is negatively related to production flexibility but positively related to investment flexibility. This split in results suggests that although asset substitution facilitated by investment flexibility can be prevented contractually, risk shifting facilitated by production flexibility is intractable. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

This paper examines how industry structure affects corporate investment patterns. Real options theory shows that deferring irreversible investment in the face of uncertainty is valuable. Theory also shows that the value of waiting to invest falls if investment opportunities are contestable. Consistent with these theories, we find that firms in monopolistic industries exhibit lower investment-q; sensitivity and are slower to invest than firms in competitive industries. However, we find that investment-q; sensitivity and investment speed are highest in oligopolistic industries, suggesting that the value of investing strategically can outweigh the value of waiting. Indeed, oligopolistic industries experience less entry and more exit than other industries.

Investment patterns often associated with agency and information problems can emerge as rational responses to product–market rivalry. We illustrate this result when industry players make simultaneous or sequential investment decisions in the face of two negative externalities. One externality arises when all competing firms invest, thus eroding the gains to investment accruing to any one firm. Another externality arises when some firms do not invest and lose out to rivals who do invest. The value of investment therefore depends on the investment’s intrinsic merits and the actions of all competitors. Our analysis can rationalize investment patterns that might appear suboptimal when such externalities are ignored. For instance, our simultaneous model can justify investment levels that might otherwise be interpreted as under- or over-investment. Our sequential model shows that value-maximizing firms might optimally herd in their investment decisions. We present evidence supporting key aspects of both the simultaneous and sequential models.

We examine the importance of industry to firm-level financial and real decisions. We find that in addition to standard industry fixed effects, financial structure also depends on a firm's position within its industry. In competitive industries, a firm's financial leverage depends on its natural hedge (its proximity to the median industry capital-labor ratio), the actions of other firms in the industry, and its status as entrant, incumbent, or exiting firm. Financial leverage is higher and less dispersed in concentrated industries, where strategic debt interactions are also stronger, but a firm's natural hedge is not significant. Our results show that financial structure, technology, and risk are jointly determined within industries. These findings are consistent with recent industry equilibrium models of financial structure.

ABSTRACT We model and estimate the value of corporate risk management. We show how risk management can add value when revenues and costs are nonlinearly related to prices and estimate the model by regressing quarterly firm sales and costs on the second and higher moments of output and input prices. For a sample of 34 oil refiners, we find that hedging concave revenues and leaving concave costs exposed each represent between 2% and 3% of firm value. We validate our approach by regressing Tobin's q on the estimated value and level of risk management and find results consistent with the model.

We examine the importance of industry to firm-level financial and real decisions. We find that in addition to standard industry fixed effects, financial structure also depends on a firm's position within its industry. In competitive industries, a firm's financial leverage depends on its natural hedge (its proximity to the median industry capital--labor ratio), the actions of other firms in the industry, and its status as entrant, incumbent, or exiting firm. Financial leverage is higher and less dispersed in concentrated industries, where strategic debt interactions are also stronger, but a firm's natural hedge is not significant. Our results show that financial structure, technology, and risk are jointly determined within industries. These findings are consistent with recent industry equilibrium models of financial structure. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.