The ownership of pension assets in a defined benefit pension plan is an unresolved issue in corporate finance. The issue is important because it defines the appropriate investment policy for a pension fund. In this paper, we summarize the ownership debate in the form of two mutually exclusive theories. We then focus on a recently popular event in pension finance, excess asset reversions. Our paper demonstrates the valuation effects associated with this event in a stochastic dominance framework. Under certain conditions, a reversion constitutes an expropriation of wealth from the participants and beneficiaries of the plan to the firm. Using data provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the Center for Research in Security Prices tape, we examine the returns to the shareholders of 58 companies which conducted excess asset reversions between 1980 and 1984. Our results show that large abnormal returns accrued to these shareholders around the time of the reversion. These findings have implications both for the appropriate investment policy of pension funds and for public policy with respect to plan terminations.

Capital market data were used to examine the divestiture effects pertaining to deregulation, the dropping of antitrust charges, and the reversing of the co-insurance effect associated with the recent breakup of AT&T. The empirical results of the study indicate that significant economic events took place during the breakup process, which led to transfers of wealth from various parties to the securityholders of AT&T. The results also indicate that the buffering effect of regulation was reduced as AT&T went through the total deregulation process. This is in accordance with Peltzman's prediction.

The 1980 Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) mandates that Regulation Q be phased out by 1986. With deregulation of interest rate ceilings, the cost of raising capital funds for commercial banks would become more volatile and more closely related with interest rates in the money and capital markets. Thus, value‐maximizing bank managers would need to be concerned not only with the internal risk, but also with the external risk in bank portfolio management decisions. Based upon the cash flow version of the capital asset pricing model, this paper analyzes the joint impact of interest rate deregulation and capital requirements on the portfolio behavior of a banking firm.

This paper examines the implications of the joint effects of insurance and taxes for the optimal corporate pension strategy. It is shown that neither the “mini-max” nor the “maxi-min” strategy advocated by previous authors is necessarily best in corporate pension management. In the presence of capital market imperfections, the analysis via a single-period contingent-claims model indicates that optimal corporate pension strategy in both asset-allocation and funding decisions can be a noncorner interior solution.

The 1980 Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) mandates that Regulation Q be phased out by 1986. With deregulation of interest rate ceilings, the cost of raising capital funds for commercial banks would become more volatile and more closely related with interest rates in the money and capital markets. Thus, value-maximizing bank managers would need to be concerned not only with the internal risk, but also with the external risk in bank portfolio management decisions. Based upon the cash flow version of the capital asset pricing model, this paper analyzes the joint impact of interest rate deregulation and capital requirements on the portfolio behavior of a banking firm.

This paper examines the implications of the joint effects of insurance and taxes for the optimal corporate pension strategy. It is shown that neither the “mini‐max” nor the “maxi‐min” strategy advocated by previous authors is necessarily best in corporate pension management. In the presence of capital market imperfections, the analysis via a single‐period contingent‐claims model indicates that optimal corporate pension strategy in both asset‐allocation and funding decisions can be a noncorner interior solution.