We analyze a firm's investment problem when it faces preemption risk and profits are convex in market profitability. In a setup where firms have asymmetric profit convexity, which we relate to firm quality, we show that this has interesting effects on valuation and the order of entry. The interplay between profit convexity and market growth impacts whether a high-quality or a low-quality firm is the first mover. We relate the first-mover advantage to patents; we find that patents expedite investments and increase the incentives for high-quality firms to become first movers. Furthermore, even with a persistent first-mover advantage we show that first-mover advantages in terms of firm value are either over- or underestimated. Thus, our model sheds light on why empirical studies find mixed support for the existence of a first-mover advantage.

In a dynamic setting with asymmetric information we consider firms’ debt-equity choice and investment timing. We extend recent research by adding an abandonment option and assets-in-place and we show that these extensions make debt more attractive. This implies, e.g., that mature firms (with larger assets-in-place) mainly use debt financing, whereas young high-growth firms (without assets-in-place) frequently use equity financing and signal their type by early investment. Simulation analyses confirm this and our model is thus able to explain empirical patterns which contradict the static pecking order theory.

This paper investigates the interplay between government subsidies, production technology, and learning through imprecise signals in shaping a firm’s investment strategy. Utilizing a real options framework with complementary investments, we address uncertainty in different investment stages and the limited informativeness of signals. Our findings reveal that optimal subsidization aligns a firm’s incentives with the evolving knowledge gained during the investment process. Specifically, the interaction between production technology elasticity and signal quality is crucial. Subsidies prove most effective when signals are highly informative, particularly when the technology’s returns are dependent on later-stage investments. This analysis highlights the need to manage uncertainty at each stage to maximize social net benefits, offering insights for policymakers on structuring subsidies under uncertainty.

We analyze venture capital budgeting in a model with agency conflicts among entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and investors. Our three-player setting is crucial for the analysis of compensation to venture capitalists. We focus on the venture capitalist's decision to invest in correlated enterprises, and we emphasize the importance of information and the venture capitalist's role in resolving adverse selection on the entrepreneurial side. The importance of information increases the minimum carried interest offered to the venture capitalist, whereas correlated projects decrease it. The carried interest is determined by the size and level of correlation in his portfolio. Our analysis provides predictions in line with a number of empirical observations, e.g. that venture capitalists typically receive a carried interest which is “sticky” around a 20% level.

We analyze how the liquidity of real and financial assets affects corporate investment. The trade-off between liquidation costs and underinvestment costs implies that low-liquidity firms exhibit negative investment sensitivities to liquid funds, whereas high-liquidity firms have positive sensitivities. If real assets are not divisible in liquidation, firms with high financial liquidity optimally avoid external financing and instead cut new investment. If real assets are divisible, firms use external financing, which implies a lower sensitivity. In addition, asset redeployability decreases the investment sensitivity. Our findings demonstrate that asset liquidity is an important determinant of corporate investment.

We analyze what role debt overhang and covenants have in a manager’s choice between issuing callable or convertible debt when a firm needs to issue a substantial amount of debt. Callable bonds provide a higher coupon in exchange for a repurchase option. Convertible bonds offer bondholders the option to exchange debt to equity. Using a dynamic capital structure model with investment choice, we find that callable debt implies a larger debt overhang friction, and for highly leveraged firms convertible debt is preferred. Moreover, if outstanding bonds have net-worth covenants attached, callable bonds are more likely to be issued. Our empirical findings support the theory.

We analyze the existence of policy reversal, the phenomenon sometimes observed that a certain policy (say extreme left-wing) is implemented by the “unlikely” (right-wing) party. We formulate a Downsian signaling model where the incumbent government, through its choice of policy, reveals information both regarding own preferences and external circumstances that may call for a particular policy. We show that policy reversal may indeed exist as an equilibrium phenomenon. This is partly because the incumbent party has superior opportunities to reveal information, and partly because its reputation protects a left-wing incumbent when advertising a right-wing policy.

We consider a dynamic trade-off model of a firm's capital structure with debt renegotiation. Debt holders only accept restructuring offers from equity holders backed by threats which are in the equity holders' own interest to execute. Our model shows that in a complete information model in which taxes and bankruptcy costs are the only frictions, violations of the absolute priority rule (APR) are typically optimal. The size of the bankruptcy costs and the equity holders' bargaining power affect the size of APR violations, but they have only a minor impact on the choice of capital structure.

ABSTRACT We derive the optimal compensation contract in a principal–agent setting in which outcome is used to provide incentives for both effort and risky investments. To motivate investment, optimal compensation entails rewards for high as well as low outcomes, and it is increasing at the mean outcome to motivate effort. If rewarding low outcomes is infeasible, compensation consisting of stocks and options is a near‐efficient means of overcoming the manager's induced aversion to undertaking risky investments, whereas stock compensation is not. However, stock plus option compensation may induce excessively risky investments, and capping pay can be important in curbing such behavior.