Knowledge that Transforms

While it is crucial to understand the impact of regulatory changes on market risk, the literature does not show how risk responds to expected regulatory changes that are specifically designed to change risk. Our paper fills this gap by providing a detailed study of one such case. Using both a sample of privatized U.K. companies, and U.K. and U.S. control portfolios, between 1993 and 2000, we show (both for the single-factor market model and the three-factor Fama-French model) that the observed changes in market risk are significant and consistent with theory.

This paper develops a test for herding in forecasts by professional financial analysts that is robust to (a) correlated information amongst analysts; (b) common unforecasted industry-wide earnings shocks; (c) information arrival over the forecasting cycle; (d) the possibility that the earnings that analysts forecast differ from what the econometrician observes; and (e) systematic optimism or pessimism among analysts. We find that forecasts are biased, but that analysts do not herd. Instead, analysts “anti-herd”: Analysts systematically issue biased contrarian forecasts that overshoot the publicly-available consensus forecast in the direction of their private information.

We develop a simple model of the effect of public transaction reporting on trade execution costs and test it using a sample of institutional trades in corporate bonds, before and after initiation of the TRACE reporting system. Trade execution costs fell approximately 50% for bonds eligible for TRACE transaction reporting, and 20% for bonds not eligible for TRACE reporting, suggesting the presence of a “liquidity externality.” The key results are robust to changes in variables, such as interest rate volatility and trading activity that might also affect execution costs. Market shares and the cost advantage to large dealers decreased post-TRACE. These results indicate that market design can have first-order effects, even for sophisticated institutional customers.

Derrien [2005. Journal of Finance 60, 487–521] and Ljungqvist et al. [2006. Journal of Business] build upon the work of Miller [1977. Journal of Finance 32, 1151–1168] and claim that issuers and the regular customers of investment bankers benefit from the presence of sentiment investors (noise traders) in the market for an initial public offering (IPO). Thus we argue that investment bankers have an incentive to promote an IPO to induce sentiment investors into the market for it. Consistent with this motivation and these models, we expect that the promotional efforts of investment bankers should influence the compensation of investment bankers, the valuation of an IPO, its initial returns and trading, the wealth gains of insider shareholders, and the likelihood that an issuer switches investment bankers for a subsequent seasoned equity offering. Examining data for a sample of IPOs from 1993 through 2000, we find evidence consistent with these predictions and so with the proposition that an investment banker's ability to market an IPO to sentiment investors is important.

Recent corporate debt offerings have included a covenant specifying a pre-determined payment to debtholders when the debt is downgraded. We examine the incentive for equityholders to increase firm risk (and the associated costs) when debt includes a “rating trigger.” Equityholders of firms with a low-risk profile and operating flexibility choose debt with a trigger, while equityholders of firms with a high-risk profile and less flexibility choose regular debt. A trigger that requires an equity infusion better mitigates conflicts between equityholders and debtholders than a trigger paid by liquidating assets. A trigger that increases the coupon rate is not optimal.

This paper analyzes endogenous variations in aggregate liquidity that arise in standard representative-agent endowment economies. I introduce a natural definition of liquidity, essentially a shadow elasticity, that characterizes the price impact function or bid/ask spread that a small trader would experience. I compute this quantity for some tractable examples and uncover a rich variety of predictions that, in some cases, appear consistent with levels and covariations observed in the data. The results have important implications for the pricing and hedging of liquidity risk.

This paper forms investment strategies in US domestic equity mutual funds, incorporating predictability in (i) manager skills, (ii) fund risk loadings, and (iii) benchmark returns. We find predictability in manager skills to be the dominant source of investment profitability—long-only strategies that incorporate such predictability outperform their Fama-French and momentum benchmarks by 2 to 4%/year by timing industries over the business cycle, and by an additional 3 to 6%/year by choosing funds that outperform their industry benchmarks. Our findings indicate that active management adds significant value, and that industries are important in locating outperforming mutual funds.

Within diversified firms, the negative impact of leverage on investment is significantly greater for high q than for low q segments and significantly greater for non-core than for core segments. This differs substantially from focused firms and is consistent with the view that diversified firms allocate a disproportionate share of their debt service burden to their higher q and non-core segments. We also find that, among low-growth firms, the positive relation between leverage and firm value is significantly weaker in diversified firms than in focused firms. We conclude that the disciplinary benefits of debt are partially offset by the additional managerial discretion in allocating debt service that is provided by the diversified organizational structure.

Using a comprehensive database of European firms, we study the effect of market entry regulations on the creation of new limited-liability firms, the average size of entrants, and the growth of incumbent firms. We find that costly regulations hamper the creation of new firms, especially in industries that should naturally have high entry. These regulations also force new entrants to be larger and cause incumbent firms in naturally high-entry industries to grow more slowly. Our results hold even when we correct for the availability of financing, the degree of protection of intellectual property, and labor regulations.