Knowledge that Transforms

Evidence presented here indicates that the relationship between stock returns and unexpected inflation differs systematically across firms. The differences are shown to be consistent with cross-sectional variation in firms' nominal contracts (monetary claims and depreciation tax shields). The differences are also partially explained by proxies for underlying firm characteristics that could create interaction between unexpected inflation and operating profitability. Finally, much if not most of the differences appear to arise because unexpected inflation is correlated with changes in expected aggregate real activity, the effects of which tend to vary across firms according to their systematic risk.

We examine the effects of market making and intermittent trading on estimates of stock price volatility. When observed price changes are correctly tied to a stock's true price dynamics, it is found that non-trading per se causes a loss of efficiency but no bias in traditional volatility estimates. Non-trading induces substancial inefficiency in the extreme value estimator of volatility which it biases downward. Market making's effects add to the non-trading induced inefficiency in the traditional estimator, while information trading causes a downward bias, and liquidity trading a potentially removable upward bias, in that estimator.

This paper analyzes the effect of corporate debt offerings on stock prices. Straight debt offerings have non-positive price effects, while convertible debt offerings have significantly negative effects. Public utility mortgage (non-convertible) bond offerings have marginally negative effects, and the effect is significantly negative when the proceeds are used to finance the utility's investment program. Cross-sectional regressions reveal no relation between offer-induced price effects and offering size, rating, post-offer changes in abnormal earnings or debt-related tax shields. The evidence is inconsistent with theories predicting that the price effects of capital structure changes go in the direction of the leverage change.

In this paper we provide a model of the underwritten offerings of new shares of seasoned securities. Our purpose is to explain why the offering price chosen by the underwriter is lower than the market price of the firm's shares. Our model recognizes the interdependence between the markets surrounding the announcement and sale of the new issue and recognizes as well the effect which asymmetric information regarding investor demands has upon the prices in these markets.

This paper measures the effects on stock proces of corporate investments in 5% or more of another company's equity securities. Such investments initiate a process that may end with a takeover, targeted repurchase, takeover by a third party, or sale of the shares. The total valuation effect of the investment for acquiring and target firms includes returns at disclosure of the investment position, the outcome announcement, and related intervening events. For example, the positive return for target firms at initial disclosure of the investment more than offsets the negative return at a targeted repurchase.

We investigate stock market rationality by examining the timeliness and unbiasedness of the market's response to dividend announcements. Our initial findings for market timeliness show a sluggish market reaction to dividend announcements; however, when the ex-dividend effect is controlled for, we find no evidence of a sluggish market reaction. We examine the unbiasedness of the market's response by testing whether the net announcement effect across a sample that is devoid of ex-post selection bias sums to zero. We observe a significant positive net announcement effect and examine several plausible conjectures for this puzzling phenomenon, but none provides a satisfactory explanation.

The mean return computational method has a substantial effect on the estimated small firm premium. The buy-and-hold method, which best mimics actual investment experience, produces an estimated small-firm premium only one-half as large as the arithmetic and re-balanced methods which are often used in empirical studies. Similar biases can be expected in mean returns when securities are classified by any variable related to trading volume.

This paper investigates the rationale behind interfirm tender offers by examining the returns realized by the stockholders of firms that were the targets of unsuccessful tender offers and firms that have made unsuccessful offers. Our results suggest that the permanent positive revaluation of the unsuccessful target shares [documented by Dodd and Ruback (1977) and Bradley (1980)] is due primarily to the emergence of and/or the anticipation of another bid that would ultimately result in the transfer of control of the target resources. We also find that the rejection of a tender offer has differential effects on the share prices of the unsuccessful bidding firms depending upon whether the tender offer process results in a change in the control of target resources. On the basis of these results we conclude that acquisitions via tender offers are attempts by bidding firms to exploit potential synergies, not simply superior information regarding the ‘true’ value of the target resources.

This paper performs lower boundary condition tests based on rational pricing of call options and an implied standard deviation test based on the bid/ask prices of options. These efficiency tests attempt to closely approximate conditions in the option markets to avoid the pitfalls indicated by Phillips and Smith (1980). The tests use transactions data and account for the effects of stock and option bid/ask prices, simultaneity of stock and option prices, depth of market, execution lag and transaction costs. The small and relatively infrequent profits due to market mispricing disappear in the lower boundary tests when transaction costs are taken into account. Frequent violations of the tighter boundary conditions in the implied standard deviation test are reported, but the estimated profits cannot be unambiguously attributed to option market inefficiency.

This paper is concerned with the size-related anomalies in stock returns reported by Banz (1981) and Reinganum (1981). They showed that small firms have tended to yield returns greater than those predicted by the traditional CAPM. We find that the size effect is linear in the logarithm of size, but reject the hypothesis that the ex ante excess return attributable to size is stable through time. We briefly analyze the Seemingly Unrelated Regression Model (SURM) and a two-step procedure as two alternative estimators of the size effect. Due to the instability of the effect, we find that the estimates are sensitive to the time period studied.