Knowledge that Transforms

We use when-issued transactions data to assess the Treasury's current experiment with uniform auctions. When-issued volume is higher under uniform as compared to discriminatory auctions, suggesting a higher information release, which should reduce pre-auction uncertainty and the winner's curse. Under uniform auctions, when-issued volatility falls after the auction and again after the outcome announcement. The pattern is the opposite for discriminatory auctions. This is further evidence that uniform auctions increase pre-auction information and lower the short squeeze. A direct comparison of markups in uniform and discriminatory auctions yields mixed results.

This paper develops a generalized regime-switching (GRS) model of the short-term interest rate. The model allows the short rate to exhibit both mean reversion and conditional heteroskedasticity and nests the popular generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) and square root process specifications. The conditional variance process accommodates volatility clustering and dependence on the level of the interest rate. A first-order Markov process with state-dependent transition probabilities governs the switching between regimes. The GRS model is compared with various existing models of the short rate in terms of (1) the statistical fit of short-term interest rate data and (2) out-of-sample forecasting performance.

We examine the relation between exchange rate variability and stock return volatility for U.S. multinational firms and decompose this relation into components of systematic and diversifiable risk. Focusing on two five-year periods around the 1973 switch from fixed to floating exchange rates, we find a significant increase in volatility of monthly stock returns corresponding to the period of increased exchange rate variability, even relative to the increase in stock return volatility for three control samples. In conjunction with this increase in total volatility there is also an increase in market risk (beta) for multinational firms.

Models of price formation in securities markets suggest that privately informed investors create significant illiquidity costs for uninformed investors, implying that the required rates of return should be higher for securities that are relatively illiquid. We investigate the empirical relation between monthly stock returns and measures of illiquity obtained from intraday data. We find a significant relation between required rates of return and these measures after adjusting for the Fama and French risk factors, and also after accounting for the effects of the stock price level.

I present evidence consistent with theories that small boards of directors are more effective. Using Tobin's Q as an approximation of market valuation, I find an inverse association between board size and firm value in a sample of 452 large U.S. industrial corporations between 1984 and 1991. The result is robust to numerous controls for company size, industry membership, inside stock ownership, growth opportunities, and alternative corporate governance structures. Companies with small boards also exhibit more favorable values for financial ratios, and provide stronger CEO performance incentives from compensation and the threat of dismissal.

Execution costs, as measured by the quoted spread, the effective spread (which accounts for trades inside the quotes), the realized spread (which measures revenues of suppliers of immediacy), the Roll (1984) implied spread, and the post-trade variability, are twice as large for a sample of NASDAQ stocks as they are for a matched sample of NYSE stocks. The difference is not due to differences in adverse information, in market depth, or in the frequency of even-eighth quotes. Partial explanations are provided by differences in the treatment of limit orders and commissions in the two markets. We conclude that important explanations are the internalization and preferencing of order flow and the presence of alternative interdealer trading systems, factors that limit dealers' incentives to narrow spreads on NASDAQ.

This paper provides an explanation for the diversity in investment strategies and fees of open-end mutual funds. Mutual funds seek to dissuade redemptions through front- and back-end load fees. The empirical evidence is consistent with model predictions that such fees dissuade redemptions in open-end funds, and that funds hold more cash when there is uncertainty about redemptions. Furthermore, funds with load and redemption fees hold less cash that their no-load counterparts. The results suggest that aggressive funds are sensitive to cash flows and are likely to rely on fees to dissuade redemptions.

We examine the accounting and market performance of reverse leveraged buyouts (i.e., firms making their first public offering after previously completing a leveraged buyout). On average, the accounting performance of these firms is significantly better than their industries at the time of the initial public offering (IPO) and for at least the following four years, though there is some evidence of a decline in performance. Cross-sectional variation in accounting performance subsequent to the IPO is related to changes in the equity ownership of both operating management and other insiders, and is unrelated to changes in leverage. Finally, there is no evidence of abnormal common stock performance after the reverse leveraged buyout.

This paper examines the disciplining function of hostile takeovers in the U.K. in 1985 and 1986. We report evidence of high board turnover and significant levels of post-takeover restructuring. Large gains are anticipated in hostile bids as reflected in high bid premiums. However, there is little evidence of poor performance prior to bids, suggesting that the high board turnover does not derive from past managerial failure. Hostile takeovers do not therefore perform a disciplining function. Instead, rejection of bids appears to derive from opposition to post-takeover redeployment of assets and renegotiation over the terms of bids.

We study the signaling content of managers' dividend decisions for 145 NYSE firms whose annual earnings decline after nine or more consecutive years of growth. Using a variety of model specifications and definitions of favorable dividend signals, we find virtually no support for the notion that dividend decisions help identify firms with superior future earnings. Dividends tend not to be reliable signals because (i) a behavioral bias (overoptimism) leads managers to overestimate future earnings when growth prospects fade; and (ii) managers make only modest cash commitments when they increase dividends, undermining the reliability of such signals.