This study compares the pre‐ and postprivatization financial and operating performance of 85 companies from 28 industrialized countries that were privatized through public share offerings for the period from 1990 through 1996. We document significant increases in profitability, output, operating efficiency, and dividend payments—and significant decreases in leverage ratios—for our full sample of firms after privatization, and for most subsamples examined. Capital expenditures increase significantly in absolute terms, but not relative to sales. Employment declines, but insignificantly. Combined with results from two previous, directly comparable studies, these findings strongly suggest that privatization yields significant performance improvements.

The strong bias in favor of domestic securities is a well‐documented characteristic of international investment portfolios, yet we show that the preference for investing close to home also applies to portfolios of domestic stocks. Specifically, U.S. investment managers exhibit a strong preference for locally headquartered firms, particularly small, highly levered firms that produce nontraded goods. These results suggest that asymmetric information between local and nonlocal investors may drive the preference for geographically proximate investments, and the relation between investment proximity and firm size and leverage may shed light on several well‐documented asset pricing anomalies.

We model the role various forms of nonrecourse secured debt play in efficiently redeploying assets whose value is state‐specific. Ex ante, an entrepreneur and an asset redeployer make noncontractible state‐specific investments in the primary and next‐best uses of an asset, respectively. The redeployer provides a secured nonrecourse loan equal to the value of the asset in the critical state that separates the good and bad states. In the event of a bad state, this contract averts ex post bargaining over the asset's quasi‐rents on redeployment and leaves the parties' ex ante investments undistorted.

The strong bias in favor of domestic securities is a well‐documented characteristic of international investment portfolios, yet we show that the preference for investing close to home also applies to portfolios of domestic stocks. Specifically, U.S. investment managers exhibit a strong preference for locally headquartered firms, particularly small, highly levered firms that produce nontraded goods. These results suggest that asymmetric information between local and nonlocal investors may drive the preference for geographically proximate investments, and the relation between investment proximity and firm size and leverage may shed light on several well‐documented asset pricing anomalies.

We analyze tests for long‐run abnormal returns and document that two approaches yield well‐specified test statistics in random samples. The first uses a traditional event study framework and buy‐and‐hold abnormal returns calculated using carefully constructed reference portfolios. Inference is based on either a skewness‐adjusted t ‐statistic or the empirically generated distribution of long‐run abnormal returns. The second approach is based on calculation of mean monthly abnormal returns using calendar‐time portfolios and a time‐series t ‐statistic. Though both approaches perform well in random samples, misspecification in nonrandom samples is pervasive. Thus, analysis of long‐run abnormal returns is treacherous.

We analyze tests for long‐run abnormal returns and document that two approaches yield well‐specified test statistics in random samples. The first uses a traditional event study framework and buy‐and‐hold abnormal returns calculated using carefully constructed reference portfolios. Inference is based on either a skewness‐adjusted t‐statistic or the empirically generated distribution of long‐run abnormal returns. The second approach is based on calculation of mean monthly abnormal returns using calendar‐time portfolios and a time‐series t‐statistic. Though both approaches perform well in random samples, misspecification in nonrandom samples is pervasive. Thus, analysis of long‐run abnormal returns is treacherous.

This study compares the pre‐ and postprivatization financial and operating performance of 85 companies from 28 industrialized countries that were privatized through public share offerings for the period from 1990 through 1996. We document significant increases in profitability, output, operating efficiency, and dividend payments—and significant decreases in leverage ratios—for our full sample of firms after privatization, and for most subsamples examined. Capital expenditures increase significantly in absolute terms, but not relative to sales. Employment declines, but insignificantly. Combined with results from two previous, directly comparable studies, these findings strongly suggest that privatization yields significant performance improvements.

We model the role various forms of nonrecourse secured debt play in efficiently redeploying assets whose value is state‐specific. Ex ante, an entrepreneur and an asset redeployer make noncontractible state‐specific investments in the primary and next‐best uses of an asset, respectively. The redeployer provides a secured nonrecourse loan equal to the value of the asset in the critical state that separates the good and bad states. In the event of a bad state, this contract averts ex post bargaining over the asset's quasi‐rents on redeployment and leaves the parties' ex ante investments undistorted.