Part 1 Introduction: the financial services industry - depository institutions the financial services industry - insurance companies the financial service industry - securities firms and investment banks the financial services industry - mutual funds the financial services industry - finance companies why are financial intermediaries special risks of financial mediation. Part 2 Measuring risk: interest rate risk I interest rate risk II market risk credit risk - individual loan risk credit risk - loan portfolio and concentration risk foreign exchange risk sovereign risk liquidity risk. Part 3 Managing risk: liability and liquidity management deposit insurance and other liability guarantees capital adequacy product diversification geographic diversification - domestic geographic diversification - international futures and forwards options, caps, floors, and collars swaps, loan sales and other credit management techniques securitization.

We provide evidence about the motivation for a parent–subsidiary governance structure by analyzing valuation effects of seasoned equity offerings by publicly traded affiliated units. Our results support Nanda's (1991) theoretical model which predicts equity offerings convey differential information about subsidiary and parent value. Subsidiary equity issuance has negative valuation effects on issuing subsidiaries and positive effects on parents, while parent equity issuance reduces issuing parent wealth and increases subsidiary wealth. Our evidence suggests that a parent–subsidiary organizational structure enhances corporate financing flexibility and mitigates underinvestment problems identified by Myers and Majluf (1984) . There is no evidence of subsidiary wealth expropriation.

We provide evidence about the motivation for a parent–subsidiary governance structure by analyzing valuation effects of seasoned equity offerings by publicly traded affiliated units. Our results support Nanda's (1991) theoretical model which predicts equity offerings convey differential information about subsidiary and parent value. Subsidiary equity issuance has negative valuation effects on issuing subsidiaries and positive effects on parents, while parent equity issuance reduces issuing parent wealth and increases subsidiary wealth. Our evidence suggests that a parent–subsidiary organizational structure enhances corporate financing flexibility and mitigates underinvestment problems identified by Myers and Majluf (1984). There is no evidence of subsidiary wealth expropriation.

The authors provide evidence about the motivation for a parent-subsidiary governance structure by analyzing valuation effects of seasoned equity offerings by publicly traded affiliated units. Their results support Vikram Nanda's (1991) theoretical model which predicts equity offerings convey differential information about subsidiary and parent value. Subsidiary equity issuance has negative valuation effects on issuing subsidiaries and positive effects on parents, while parent equity issuance reduces issuing parent wealth and increases subsidiary wealth. The authors' evidence suggests that a parent-subsidiary organizational structure enhances corporate financing flexibility and mitigates underinvestment problems identified by Stewart Myers and Nicholas Majluf (1984). There is no evidence of subsidiary wealth expropriation.

The authors analyze how ownership concentration affects firm value and control of public companies by examining effects of deaths of inside blockholders. They find shareholder wealth increases, ownership concentration falls, and extensive corporate control activity ensues. Share price responses are related to the deceased's equity stake. Control group holdings fall for two-thirds of the firms due to either the estate's dispersal or inheritors selling stock. A majority of firms become targets of control bids: three-quarters of bids are successful; one-third are hostile. The authors' evidence is broadly consistent with Stulz's (1988) model of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm value.

We analyze how ownership concentration affects firm value and control of public companies by examining effects of deaths of inside blockholders. We find shareholder wealth increases, ownership concentration falls, and extensive corporate control activity ensues. Share price responses are related to the deceased's equity stake. Control group holdings fall for two‐thirds of the firms due to either the estate's dispersal or inheritors selling stock. A majority of firms become targets of control bids: three‐quarters of bids are successful; one‐third are hostile. Our evidence is broadly consistent with Stulz's (1988) model of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm value.

We analyze intercorporate asset sales where equity is the means of payment, and compare the results to cash asset sales. Equity deals are value‐enhancing for both buyers, 10%, and sellers, 3%, while cash sales generate seller returns of 1.9% and buyer returns that are not significant. Combined wealth gains are large for equity deals, but modest for cash deals. Equity‐based asset sales are not a precursor to consolidations between buyers and sellers, and do not affect buyer openness to the takeover market. We conclude that the use of buyer equity conveys favorable information about the value of assets and buyers.

The authors examine the value of bank durability to borrowing firms. The analysis is based on theoretical models of the asset services view of intermediation that imply that private information and associated relationship-specific activities are intrinsic to bank lending. The authors analyze share price effects on firms with lending relationships with Continental Illinois Bank during its de facto failure and subsequent FDIC rescue. They find the bank's impending insolvency had negative effects and the FDIC rescue positi ve effects on client firm share prices. The authors conclude that borro wers incur significant costs in response to unanticipated reductions in bank durability and, thus, are bank stakeholders.