Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT This paper documents that hedge funds did not exert a correcting force on stock prices during the technology bubble. Instead, they were heavily invested in technology stocks. This does not seem to be the result of unawareness of the bubble: Hedge funds captured the upturn, but, by reducing their positions in stocks that were about to decline, avoided much of the downturn. Our findings question the efficient markets notion that rational speculators always stabilize prices. They are consistent with models in which rational investors may prefer to ride bubbles because of predictable investor sentiment and limits to arbitrage.

ABSTRACT I use the Business Information Tracking Series (BITS), a new census database that covers the whole U.S. economy at the establishment level, to examine whether the finding of a diversification discount is an artifact of segment data. BITS data allow me to construct business units that are more consistently and objectively defined than segments, and thus more comparable across firms. Using these data on a sample that yields a discount according to segment data, I find a diversification premium. The premium is robust to variations in the sample, business unit definition, and measures of excess value and diversification.

ABSTRACT Recent work by Diether, Malloy, and Scherbina (2002) has established a negative relationship between stock returns and the dispersion of analysts' earnings forecasts. I offer a simple explanation for this phenomenon based on the interpretation of dispersion as a proxy for unpriced information risk arising when asset values are unobservable. The relationship then follows from a general options‐pricing result: For a levered firm, expected returns should always decrease with the level of idiosyncratic asset risk. This story is formalized with a straightforward model. Reasonable parameter values produce large effects, and the theory's main empirical prediction is supported in cross‐sectional tests.

ABSTRACT From the existing literature, it is not clear what effect financing constraints have on the sensitivities of firms' investment to their cash flow. I propose an explanation that reconciles the conflicting empirical evidence. I present two models: the unconstrained model, in which firms can raise external funds, and the constrained model, in which firms cannot do so. Using low dividends to identify financing constraints in my generated panel of data produces results consistent with those of Fazzari, Hubbard, and Petersen; using the constrained model produces results consistent with those of Kaplan and Zingales.

ABSTRACT I study incentives received by outside directors in Fortune 500 firms from compensation, replacement, and the opportunity to obtain other directorships. Previous research has only shown these relations to apply under limited circumstances such as financial distress. Together these incentive mechanisms provide directors with wealth increases of approximately 11 cents per $1,000 rise in firm value. Although smaller than the performance sensitivities of CEOs, outside directors' incentives imply a change in wealth of about $285,000 for a 1 standard deviation ( SD ) change in typical firm performance. Cross‐sectional patterns of director equity awards conform to agency and financial theories.

ABSTRACT Close to 50% of municipal bonds are prepackaged with insurance at the time of issue. We offer a tax‐based rationale for the emergence of third‐party insurance of tax‐exempt bonds. We argue that insurance adds value as it allows a third party to become, in a probabilistic sense, an issuer of tax‐exempt securities. Insurance however reduces value by eliminating the possibility of a capital tax loss. While the net benefit from insurance increases with bond maturity, the benefit may not increase monotonically with default risk. We also provide empirical evidence supportive of the model's predictions.

ABSTRACT We model consumption and dividend growth rates as containing (1) a small long‐run predictable component, and (2) fluctuating economic uncertainty (consumption volatility). These dynamics, for which we provide empirical support, in conjunction with Epstein and Zin's (1989) preferences, can explain key asset markets phenomena. In our economy, financial markets dislike economic uncertainty and better long‐run growth prospects raise equity prices. The model can justify the equity premium, the risk‐free rate, and the volatility of the market return, risk‐free rate, and the price–dividend ratio. As in the data, dividend yields predict returns and the volatility of returns is time‐varying.

ABSTRACT Why do some start‐up firms raise funds from banks and others from venture capitalists? To address this question, I study a model in which the venture capitalist can evaluate the entrepreneur's project more accurately than the bank but can also threaten to steal it from the entrepreneur. Consistent with evidence regarding venture capital finance, the model implies that the characteristics of a firm financing through venture capitalists are relatively little collateral, high growth, high risk, and high profitability. The model also suggests that tighter protection of intellectual property rights encourages entrepreneurs to finance through venture capitalists.

ABSTRACT We report that initial public offering (IPO) underpricing is positively related to analyst coverage by the lead underwriter and to the presence of an all‐star analyst on the research staff of the lead underwriter. These findings are robust to controls for other determinants of underpricing and to controls for the endogeneity of underpricing and analyst coverage. In addition, we find that the probability of switching underwriters between IPO and seasoned equity offering is negatively related to the unexpected amount of post‐IPO analyst coverage. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that underpricing is, in part, compensation for expected post‐IPO analyst coverage from highly ranked analysts.

ABSTRACT We obtain a large class of discrete‐time risk‐neutral valuation relationships, or “preference‐free” derivatives pricing models, by imposing a simple restriction on the state‐price density process. The risk‐neutral stock‐return and forward‐rate dynamics are obtained by changing only a location parameter, which can be determined independent of the preference and true location parameters. The Gaussian models of Rubinstein (1976) , Brennan (1979) , and Câmera (2003) , and the gamma model of Heston (1993) are all special cases. The model provides simple relationships between expected returns and state‐price density parameters analogous to the diffusion case.