Knowledge that Transforms

This paper is the first comprehensive study of price differences for dual class equity at the Oslo Stock Exchange. It analyzes the relative importance of corporate control, foreign ownership restrictions and stock market liquidity for the price differences. The Norwegian market has the peculiar feature that in part of the sample period non-voting shares were trading at a premium to voting shares, i.e., what is usually termed the “voting premium” was negative. This result can be rationalized by restrictions on foreign ownership. In the later part of the period, with no regulatory restrictions on foreign ownership, the voting premium is positive, and related to corporate governance and liquidity.

Despite a lot of restructuring and many innovations in recent years, the securities transaction industry in the European Union is still a highly inefficient and inconsistently configured system for cross-border transactions. This paper analyzes the functions performed, the institutions involved and the parameters concerned that shape market and ownership structure in the industry. Of particular interest are microeconomic incentives of the main players that can be in contradiction to social welfare. We develop a framework and analyze three consistent systems for the securities transaction industry in the EU that offer superior efficiency than the current, inefficient arrangement. Some policy advice is given to select the ‘best’ system for the Single European Financial Market.

This paper uses a variant of the consumption-based representative agent model in Campbell and Cochrane [Campbell, J.Y., Cochrane, J.H., 1999. By force of habit: Consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. Journal of Political Economy 107, 205–251] to study how investors’ time-varying risk aversion affects asset prices. First, we show that a countercyclical variation of risk aversion drives a procyclical conditional risk premium. Second, we show that with a small value for the volatility of the log surplus consumption ratio, a large value of risk aversion may not determine whether the equity premium and the risk-free rate puzzles can be resolved or not. Third, we show that countercyclical risk aversion may not help explain the predictability of long-horizon stock returns, the univariate mean-reversion of stock prices and the “leverage effect” in return volatility.