Managers frequently cite the desire to mitigate asymmetric information as a motivation for increasing firm focus. The information benefits of focus appear relevant for the subset of firms that actually increase their focus; however, the relevance of focus-related information benefits for the population of diversified firms is an open question. This paper examines the relation between corporate diversification and asymmetric information proxies derived from analysts’ forecasts and abnormal returns associated with earnings announcements. I find that greater diversification is not associated with increased asymmetric information. These results call into question the notion that corporate diversification strictly exacerbates information problems.

This paper describes the market for borrowing corporate bonds using a comprehensive data set from a major lender. The cost of borrowing corporate bonds is comparable to the cost of borrowing stock, between 10 and 20 basis points, and both have fallen over time. Factors that influence borrowing costs are loan size, percentage of inventory lent, rating, and borrower identity. There is no evidence that bond short sellers have private information. Bonds with Credit Default Swaps (CDS) contracts are more actively lent than those without. Finally, the 2007 Credit Crunch does not affect average borrowing costs or loan volume, but does increase borrowing cost variance.

This paper is an exploration of the ability of game theory to explain real-world corporate maneuvering. We explore this issue by investigating bond tender offers accompanied by a threat to call nontendered bonds, so called “Simultaneous Tender and Call” (STAC) offers. We argue that STACs engender a transparent game played by bondholders and shareholders. We model this game and use this model to predict the outcome of STACs. Finally, we investigate the issue of whether this theoretical model explains the outcomes of four actual STAC issues made by James River, May Department Stores, and Houston Lighting & Power Company. Our clinical analysis provides support for the explanatory power of our model. Calibrating the predictions of the model with data from these STACs, we demonstrate a correspondence between theory and actual corporate behavior. As predicted by our model, subgame perfection, or threat credibility, and preplay coordination are central to explaining the outcomes of the STACs.