The authors derive a role for inside investors, such as venture capitalists, in resolving various agency problems that arise in a multistage financial contracting problem. Absent an inside investor, the choice of securities is unlikely to reveal all private information and overinvestment may occur. An inside investor, however, always makes optimal investment decisions if and only if he holds a fixed-fraction contract, where he always receives a fixed fraction of the project's payoff and finances that same fraction of future investments. This contract also eliminates any incentives of the venture capitalist to misprice securities issued in later financing rounds.

Explores the financial contracts that can be entered into by the entrepreneur and the inside investor that permit optimal continuation and investment decisions. The inside investor is assumed to be a venture capitalist. The unique contract under examination is termed the fixed-fraction contract. It gives the venture capitalist an equity-like position in the firm. In addition to enlisting the funds of a venture capitalist, the entrepreneur can approach outside investors. Outside investors do not have the same information that inside investors do. The model presented consists of a three-period project. The analysis of the entrepreneur-led financing highlights the information asymmetry that exists in this type of relationship in addition to agency problems related to investment decisions. On the other hand, the fixed-fraction contract involving the venture capitalist induces optimal continuation because the venture capitalist owns a fixed fraction of the project for which he or she provides the capital. Since the venture capitalist payoff is independent of the pricing of later-issued securities, or she he has no reason to misprice these securities. While the benefits of the fixed-fraction contract are shown, consideration must be given to the venture capitalist's cost of monitoring the firm. (SRD)

We derive a role for inside investors, such as venture capitalists, in resolving various agency problems that arise in a multistage financial contracting problem. Absent an inside investor, the choice of securities is unlikely to reveal all private information, and overinvestment may occur. An inside investor, however, always makes optimal investment decisions if and only if he holds a fixed‐fraction contract, where he always receives a fixed fraction of the project's payoff and finances that same fraction of future investments. This contract also eliminates any incentives of the venture capitalist to misprice securities issued in later financing rounds.

Firms’ inability to commit to future funding choices has profound consequences for capital structure dynamics. With debt in place, shareholders pervasively resist leverage reductions no matter how much such reductions may enhance firm value. Shareholders would instead choose to increase leverage even if the new debt is junior and would reduce firm value. These asymmetric forces in leverage adjustments, which we call the leverage ratchet effect, cause equilibrium leverage outcomes to be history-dependent. If forced to reduce leverage, shareholders are biased toward selling assets relative to potentially more efficient alternatives such as pure recapitalizations.

Firms’ inability to commit to future funding choices has profound consequences for capital structure dynamics. With debt in place, shareholders pervasively resist leverage reductions no matter how much such reductions may enhance firm value. Shareholders would instead choose to increase leverage even if the new debt is junior and would reduce firm value. These asymmetric forces in leverage adjustments, which we call the leverage ratchet effect , cause equilibrium leverage outcomes to be history‐dependent. If forced to reduce leverage, shareholders are biased toward selling assets relative to potentially more efficient alternatives such as pure recapitalizations.

The dichotomy between timing ability and the ability to select individual assets has been widely used in discussing investment performance measurement. This paper discusses the conceptual and econometric problems associated with defining and measuring timing and selectivity. In defining these notions we attempt to capture their intuitive interpretation. We offer two basic modeling approaches, which we term the portfolio approach and the factor approach . We show how the quality of timing and selectivity information can be identified statistically in a number of simple models, and discuss some of the econometric issues associated with these models. In particular, a simple quadratic regression is shown to be valid in measuring timing information.