This paper develops a model to answer the question whether a bank should hold a share of the equity of a borrowing firm. The model shows that a small equity stake held by the bank can have a significant and positive impact on the lending relationship. The benefit of bank equity participation arises from the reduced ability of the bank to extract rents from the firm in multiple rounds of financing. This, in turn, improves the firm’s incentive to make investments in profitable projects that require future outside finance. The benefit is likely to be significant for small to medium size firms, growth firms, and firms with ongoing capital needs. The paper addresses, from a corporate finance perspective, the current debate about whether banks should be allowed to own equity stakes in corporations – and how large these equity stakes should be.

This paper studies the consequences of opening asset markets more often for the properties of asset prices and social welfare. For all reasonable parameter values, increasing trading hours lowers average asset prices, increases unconditional asset price volatility at a given point in time, and decreases unconditional asset price volatility when averaged over the period of time that includes the additional hours that markets are open. Unconditional social welfare is increased by opening markets more often, although the welfare gains are small – well below 1% of lifetime consumption. In contrast, because expanding hours of trading affects agents' information sets, the welfare effect of more trading hours conditional on information available to agents can be large and the effect can be negative.

In recent years, securitization and other financial innovations have provided unprecedented opportunities for banks to reduce substantially their regulatory capital requirements with little or no corresponding reduction in their overall economic risks – a process termed “regulatory capital arbitrage”. These methods are used routinely to lower the effective risk-based capital requirements against certain portfolios to levels well below the Basel Capital Accord’s nominal 8% total risk-based capital standard. This paper discusses the principal techniques used to undertake capital arbitrage and the difficulties faced by bank supervisors in attempting to deal with these activities under the current capital framework.

This paper reconciles the two explanations of a financial crisis, the self-fulfilling prophecy and the fundamental causes, in an empirically-relevant framework, by explicitly modeling the costly voluntary acquisition of information about fundamentals in a variant of Diamond and Dybvig [Diamond, D., Dybvig, P., 1983. Bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity. Journal of Political Economy 91, 401–419]. The model exhibits strategic complementarity in information acquisition. In the “partial run” equilibrium investors engage in costly evaluation of projects, so that banks with lower-return projects fail. There also exist the classic “full-run” and “no-run” equilibria in which there is no project evaluation. Investors’ coordination on a specific equilibrium is triggered by a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, financial crises are seen as both fundamentals-based and self-fulfilling prophecies-based phenomena.

Past studies find abnormal returns to buying after repurchase program announcements. We analyze the profitability of trading after both program announcements and individual repurchase trade publication using different trading strategies – market and limit orders. The analysis of trades is possible because of a unique Canadian data set. The highest abnormal returns are earned by companies on their own repurchase trades which benefits the non-tendering shareholders. For the public investor, we find no strategies that, in practice, would earn abnormal returns to buying after program announcements. However, there is qualified evidence of abnormal returns to a limit order strategy following publication of individual repurchase trades.

This paper analyses changes in capitalization and control of dual class firms before and after IPO. The results indicate that the combination of a large controlling shareholder with family interests, rather than concentrated ownership per se, leads to dual class capitalization. During the first 15 years post-IPO, voting leverage continuously increases as the dual class firms issue more restricted than superior voting shares. However, control changes are equally frequent for dual and single class firms suggesting that dual class capitalization is not used to unduly entrench management. We document disputes between restricted and superior voting shareholders to illustrate the potential corporate governance problems which are associated with dual class capitalization. As a result of these disputes, investor interest in dual class equity has decreased and there is a recent trend toward reclassification back into single class equity.