We examine the impact of a stockholder–bondholder conflict over the timing of the exercise of an investment option on firm value and corporate financial policy. We find that an equity-maximizing firm exercises the option too early relative to a value-maximizing strategy, and we show how this problem can be characterized as one of overinvestment in risky investment projects. Equityholders’ incentive to overinvest significantly decreases firm value and optimal leverage, and significantly increases the credit spread of risky debt. Numerical solutions illustrate how the agency cost of overinvestment and its effect on corporate financial policy vary with firm and project characteristics.

Diversified firms trade at a discount relative to comparable portfolios of stand-alone firms. One explanation is that these firms have inefficient internal capital markets. We examine the link between firm value and the value of internal capital markets using a new form of corporate restructuring called tracking stock. We present a model that illustrates that the announcement effect of a tracking stock equity restructuring conveys information about the market’s assessment of the value of a firm’s internal capital market. We develop a measure of the profitability of the internal capital market, and we find a strong positive relation between it and tracking stock announcement effects, a finding consistent with our model.

We examine the effect of CEO pensions and deferred compensation (inside debt) on firm cash holdings and the value of cash. We document a positive relation between CEO inside debt and firm cash holdings. This positive effect is magnified by firm leverage and mitigated by the presence of financial constraints. We further find that the marginal value of cash to shareholders declines as CEO inside debt increases. Our evidence supports the view that inside debt tilts managerial incentives toward bondholders and helps balance the competing interests of stockholders and bondholders. The evidence also suggests, however, that inside debt can harm shareholder value by encouraging excess cash holdings.

We examine the effect of ex ante litigation risk on the price and non-price terms of loan contracts. Since expected litigation is endogenous, we focus on federal circuit court judge ideology to generate plausibly exogenous variation in the outcome of a class action lawsuit. We find that loans issued by firms headquartered in circuits with a higher likelihood of drawing a liberal panel of judges in a class action lawsuit have higher loan spreads, shorter maturity, and a larger number of and more restrictive covenants. To strengthen our claim that judge ideology affects loan contracting through its effect on the outcome of a class action lawsuit, we show that the influence of judge ideology on price and nonprice terms of loans is strongly influenced by factors that influence the probability of a class action lawsuit. Overall, our results bolster the case that litigation risk has a causal effect on debt contracting.