This paper investigates the wealth effects of 134 divestments by 41 firms that underwent leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. Stock in these companies is privately owned. Bond returns for publicly traded debt are used to measure the wealth effects of the divestment announcement. These divestments are, on average, not associated with significant wealth effects for the full sample. However, firms that experience financial distress have negative and significant abnormal returns associated with their divestments, while returns in non-event months are insignificant. In contrast, non-distressed firms gain when asset sales are announced. The losses suffered by bondholders in distressed sellers are large and significant when core assets are divested. Bondholders in these firms do not suffer significant losses when non-core assets are divested. Finally, abnormal bond returns are related to the structure of the firms' post-buyout debt. Returns are negatively related to the use of private debt in the capital structure and positively related to the use of subordinated debt.

This paper presents a model of incentive compatible bank regulation under moral hazard and adverse selection. We derive a wide range of simple and conceptually implementable mechanisms that can solve each type of incentive problem separately and also achieve the first-best outcome – but only when regulatory instruments involve ex post pricing that is contingent on the bank's performance relative to the market. An important feature of these mechanisms is that they do not involve a subsidy to the bank. When the regulator faces both moral hazard and adverse selection simultaneously, we identify the conditions under which the same mechanism can achieve the first-best solution.

This study considers the joint influence of contemporaneous and lagged responses to macroeconomic news in explaining US day-of-the-week effects. Macroeconomic news is measured by movements in large firms' stock prices. The average response of smaller stocks to these movements is abnormally high on Mondays, especially in down markets. After corrections for these asymmetries, the US day-of-the-week effect weakens substantially for most size-ranked portfolios in most of the six approximately equal subperiods between 1962 and 1992. These findings suggest that seasonals in processing macroeconomic news account for much of the day-of-the-week effect in equity returns.

This paper examines the degree to which cash flow availability influences firm investment in six OECD countries. In particular, we are interested in the extent to which the reliance on internal funds is affected by firm size, since there is general agreement that smaller firms have less access to external capital markets and, thus, should be more affected by the availability of internal funds. Earlier work has concluded that the documented positive relationship between cash flow and investment is evidence of the existence of financial constraints. We first examine all firms, regardless of size, in each country, and we find that the amount of corporate investment is affected by internal resources in all six countries; that is, internal financing affects firm investment. We then repeat the analysis segmenting the sample using three measures of firm size. Contrary to our a priori expectations, we find that the cash flow-investment sensitivity is generally highest in the large firm size group and smallest in the small firm size group. We deduce that the explanations for these findings are grounded in managerial agency considerations, and in the greater flexibility enjoyed by large firms in timing their investments. Thus, we conclude that the degree of sensitivity of a firm's investments to its cash flows cannot be interpreted as an accurate measure of its access to capital markets (as do Kaplan, S., Zingales, L., 1997. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 169–215), since small firms are known to have less access to external markets.