This statement presents the usual perception of bond risk. It is striking in that it does not discuss what is, from a portfolio theoretic view, the risk of a bond––the covariance of its return with the returns of other assets. This is in contrast to the typical discussion of the riskiness of common stocks, where we find some discussion of systematic risk and the role it plays in determining equilibrium expected security returns.

This paper examines the behavior of corporate bond prices during the period surrounding the announcement of a rating change. We find some evidence of price change during the period from 18 to 7 months before the rating change is announced. We find no evidence of any reaction during the 6 months prior to the rating change. We also find little reaction, if any, during the month of the change or for 6 months after the change. This evidence contradicts the recent findings of Katz and Grier and Katz.

ABSTRACT In this paper we examine the behavior of the systematic risk of corporate bonds. A model that assumes β is constant is compared with a model that allows systematic risk to vary in a manner consistent with the Black‐Scholes‐Merton Options Pricing Model. This procedure captures some fundamental properties of the movement of bond β and provides a starting point for improved models of the process generating bond returns.

In this paper we examine the behavior of the systematic risk of corporate bonds. A model that assumes β is constant is compared with a model that allows systematic risk to vary in a manner consistent with the Black-Scholes-Merton Options Pricing Model. This procedure captures some fundamental properties of the movement of bond β and provides a starting point for improved models of the process generating bond returns.

Several recent studies have been conducted to determine the level of job satisfaction, and the determinants thereof, among accountants.' All these studies utilized the Maslow theory, which is based on a hierarchy of needs.2 Maslow's theory has sometimes been criticized on philosophical, methodological and hierarchical grounds. The theory states that human needs are ordered; that is they range from lower-order to higher-order needs. As one need is adequately fulfilled, the individual moves to the next