Quantile regression (QR) is an increasingly important empirical tool in economics and other sciences for analysing the impact a set of regressors has on the conditional distribution of an outcome. Extremal QR, or QR applied to the tails, is of interest in many economic and financial applications, such as conditional value at risk, production efficiency, and adjustment bands in (S,s) models. This paper provides feasible inference tools for extremal conditional quantile models that rely on extreme value approximations to the distribution of self-normalized QR statistics. The methods are simple to implement and can be of independent interest even in the univariate (non-regression) case. We illustrate the results with two empirical examples analysing extreme fluctuations of a stock return and extremely low percentiles of live infant birthweight in the range between 250 and 1500 g.

This paper demonstrates the existence and robustness of partially revealing rational expectations equilibria in general exchange economies when some traders have non-smooth ambiguity-averse preferences. This finding illustrates that models with non-smooth ambiguity aversion provide a relatively tractable framework through which partial information revelation may be studied in a general equilibrium setting without relying on particular distributional or von Neumann–Morgenstern utility assumptions or the presence of “noise.”

We develop a simple theoretical argument that generates testable predictions about how disagreement affects corporate investment and find strong empirical support for these predictions. Investment is negatively related to a proxy for disagreement, after controlling for Tobin’s q, and after dealing with the fact that Tobin’s q and our disagreement proxy contain measurement error. This proxy is unrelated to traditional indicators of asymmetric information. We also find that variation in disagreement is an important component of the portion of the variation in Tobin’s q that matters for investment, and that disagreement affects investment and Tobin’s q more if the firm has greater financial flexibility.

We investigate the impact of bankruptcy codes on firms’ capital-structure choices. We develop a theoretical model to identify how firm characteristics may interact with the bankruptcy code in determining optimal capital structures. A novel and sharp empirical implication emerges from this model: that the difference in leverage choices under a relatively equity-friendly bankruptcy code (such as the US’s) and one that is relatively more debt-friendly (such as the UK’s) should be a decreasing function of the anticipated liquidation value of the firm’s assets. Using data on the US and the UK over the period 1990–2002, we subject this prediction to both parametric and non-parametric tests, using different proxies for liquidation values and different measures of leverage. In support for the theory, we find that our proxies for liquidation value are both statistically and economically significant in explaining leverage differences across the two countries. In contrast, many of the other factors that are known to affect within-country leverage (e.g., size) cannot explain differences in leverage across countries.

[We examine the design of control rights of external financiers, and how these interact with the firm's security issuance and capital structure when the firm's initial owners and managers may disagree with new investors over project choice. The first main result is an ex ante managerial preference for "soft" financial claims that maximize managerial projectchoice autonomy, which is in contrast to agency theory. Second, a dynamic "pecking order" of cash, equity, and debt emerges. Additional results explain equity issuance at high prices, the drifting of leverage ratios with stock returns, cash hoarding, and debt usage without taxes, agency, or signaling.]

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has expressed concern about the informativeness of firms’ Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) disclosures. A firm's MD&A is potentially uninformative if it does not change appreciably from the previous year after significant economic changes at the firm. We introduce a measure for narrative disclosure—the degree to which the MD&A differs from the previous disclosure—and provide three findings on the usefulness of MD&A disclosure. First, firms with larger economic changes modify the MD&A more than those with smaller economic changes. Second, the magnitude of stock price responses to 10‐K filings is positively associated with the MD&A modification score, but analyst earnings forecast revisions are unassociated with the score, suggesting that investors—but not analysts—use MD&A information. Finally, MD&A modification scores have declined in the past decade even as MD&A disclosures have become longer; the price reaction to MD&A modification scores has also weakened, suggesting a decline in MD&A usefulness.

[What is the effect of financial crises and their resolution on banks' choice of liquidity? When banks have relative expertise in employing risky assets, the market for these assets clears only at fire-sale prices following a large number of bank failures. The gains from acquiring assets at fire-sale prices make it attractive for banks to hold liquid assets. The resulting choice of bank liquidity is countercyclical, inefficiently low during economic booms but excessively high during crises. We present evidence consistent with these predictions. While interventions to resolve banking crises may be desirable ex post, they affect bank liquidity in subtle ways: Liquidity support to failed banks or unconditional support to surviving banks reduces incentives to hold liquidity, whereas support to surviving banks conditional on their liquid asset holdings has the opposite effect.]

We document that the deregulation of bank branching restrictions in the United States triggered a reallocation across sectors, with end effects on state-level volatility. The change cannot be explained simply by shifts in sector-level returns and volatility. A reallocation effect is at play, which we study in the context of mean-variance portfolio theory applied to sectoral returns. We find the reallocation is particularly strong in sectors characterized by young, small and external finance dependent firms, and for states that have a larger share of such sectors. The findings suggest that improving bank access to branching affects the sectoral specialization of output, in a manner that depends on the variance-covariance properties of sectoral returns, rather than on their average only.

A reverse merger allows a private company to assume the current reporting status of another company that is public. This can be done quickly, without fundraising, road show, underwriter, substantial ownership dilution, or great expense. Private firms that go public via reverse merger are often motivated by the need to quickly secure financing through privately placed stock (PIPEs) and the desire to make acquisitions using stock as payment. In each of the last eight years reverse mergers have outnumbered traditional IPOs as a mechanism for going public, and reporting shell companies are providing fuel for much of this growth. We study 585 trading shell companies over the period 2006–2008. The purpose of most of these shell firms is to find a suitor for a reverse merger agreement. These companies have no systematic risk, operations, or assets, and their share price tends to decline over time. Yet, these firms have investors. When a takeover agreement is consummated, shell company three-month abnormal returns are 48.1%. We argue that this exceptional return is compensation to investors for shell stock illiquidity and the uncertainty of finding a reverse merger suitor. We show that shell company returns are much greater at the consummation of a merger than those of a similar entity that in dollar terms is more popular among investors — Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).