To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
4 results ✕ Clear filters

The effect of changes in ownership structure on performance: Evidence from the thrift industry1We thank George Aragon, Ben Branch, Benjamin Esty (the referee), Mark Flannery, Alvin Harrell, Clifford G. Holderness, Edith Hotchkiss, Michael Jensen, Edward J. Kane, Donald May, Marcia Millon Cornett, Manju Puri, G. William Schwert (the editor), Henri Servaes, Robert Taggert, Hassan Tehranian, Thomas Vartanian, William Wilhelm, Julie Williams, and seminar participants at Boston University, the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, DC, Suffolk University, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Columbia University for helpful discussion of this study. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 1995 Annual Meetings of both the Western Finance Association and the Financial Management Association, and at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association.1

Journal of Financial Economics 1998 50(3), 291-317
Restrictions on stock ownership may harm a company's performance, because restrictions prevent owners from choosing an optimal structure. We examine the stock-price performance and ownership structure of a sample of thrift institutions that converted from mutual to stock ownership. We find that after conversion and the expiration of ownership-structure restrictions, firm performance improves significantly, and the portions of the firm owned by managers and the firm's employee stock ownership plan increase. Changes in performance are positively associated with changes in ownership by managers, but negatively associated with changes in ownership by employee stock ownership plans.

Risk management, capital budgeting, and capital structure policy for financial institutions: An integrated approach

Journal of Financial Economics 1998 47(1), 55-82
We develop a framework for analyzing the capital allocation and capital structure decisions facing financial institutions. Our model incorporates two key features: (i) value-maximizing banks have a well-founded concern with risk management; and (ii) not all the risks they face can be frictionlessly hedged in the capital market. This approach allows us to show how bank-level risk management considerations should factor into the pricing of those risks that cannot be easily hedged. We examine several applications, including: the evaluation of proprietary trading operations, and the pricing of unhedgeable derivatives positions. We also compare our approach to the RAROC methodology that has been adopted by a number of banks.

Information problems, conflicts of interest, and asset stripping:

Journal of Financial Economics 1998 48(1), 55-97
Eastern Airlines' bankruptcy illustrates the devastating effect on firm value of court-sponsored asset stripping, i.e., the use of creditors' collateral to invest in high-variance negative net present value projects. During its bankruptcy, Eastern's value dropped over 50%. A substantial portion of this value decline occurred because an overprotective court insulated Eastern from market forces and allowed value-destroying operations to continue long after it was clear that Eastern should have been shut down. The failure of Eastern's Chapter 11 demonstrates the importance of having a bankruptcy process that protects a distressed firm's assets, not simply from a run by creditors, but also from overly optimistic managers and misguided judges.

The cost of market versus regulatory discipline in banking

Journal of Financial Economics 1998 48(3), 333-358 open access
We present evidence that insured deposit financing shields banks from the full costs of market discipline. Moody's downgrades, indicators of increasing risk, are associated with negative abnormal equity returns that are increasing in the bank's reliance on insured deposits. Moreover, banks raise their use of insured deposits following increases in risk. These findings cast doubt on the ability of capital market participants to effectively discipline bank behavior within the current regulatory environment. More generally, our findings highlight the potential for regulation to undermine market discipline in regulated industries.