This paper examines common stock returns and dividend and earnings patterns surrounding specially designated dividends labeled by management as ‘extra’, ‘special’ or ‘year-end’ and compares them to those surrounding regular (unlabeled) dividend increases. The results support the notion that management uses the labeling of dividend increases to convey information to the market about the future potential of the firm. Unlabeled increases appear to contain the most positive information. Contrary to the sometimes suggested view, specially designated dividends appear to convey positive information about future dividends and earnings beyond that relating to the current period.

We examine companies that franchise some units and centrally operate (‘own’) others. The agency problems confronting these two organizational forms are analyzed. Testable hypotheses are developed. The empirical results support the notion that owning versus franchising reflects a trade-off among agency-related problems. The cost of monitoring store managers appears to be especially important in the own/franchise decision. The level of repeat business and initial investment requirements per unit also appear to be important.

We examine a vertical integration decision within the commercial banking industry. During the last quarter of the 20th century, some community banks reduced their traditional reliance on correspondent banks for upstream products and services by joining bankers' banks, a form of business cooperative. Research on vertical integration focuses primarily on firm-specific investment, market power, and government regulation. However, this case is difficult to explain in terms of these standard vertical integration motives. Our evidence suggests that bankers' banks are a response to technological change and deregulation that results in increased costs faced by community banks in dealing with correspondent banks as both suppliers and potential competitors. For instance, loan participations require sharing proprietary information about major loan customers, something a community bank would not want to provide to a potential competitor.

Agency theory implies that asset ownership and decision authority are complements. Using 1998 data from Texas commercial banks, we test whether the likelihood of local ownership of bank offices increases with the importance of granting local managers greater decision authority (for example, due to location or customer base). Our empirical evidence is consistent with this hypothesis. It suggests that complementarities between strategy and organizational structure can foster differentiation among firms in terms of location, customers, and products. It also supports the growing view that small locally-owned banks have a comparative advantage over large banks within specific environments.

Theory suggests that shareholders who own blocks of stock have a stronger incentive to invest in voting on corporate issues than nonblockholders. Our evidence indicates that institutional investors and other blockholders vote more actively on antitakeover amendments than nonblockholders, and opposition by institutions is greater when the proposal appears to harm shareholders. Our evidence suggests that institutions that are less subject to management influence, such as mutual funds, foundations, and public-employee pension funds, are more likely to oppose management than banks, insurance companies, and trusts, which frequently derive benefits from lines of business under management control.

This paper analyzes how access to deposit insurance affects the common stock returns of financial institutions during periods of financial distress. During periods of distress the definition of insolvency used by insuring agencies may be modified to avoid a substantial number of bank failures. These modifications can increase the value of future deposit guarantees and affect the behavior of stock returns of banks and S&Ls. This hypothesis is examined using S&L data for the 1976 through 1983 period. Modification of insolvency rules applied to S&Ls appears to have reduced significantly the co-movement of S&L stock returns with S&L portfolio holdings.

Financial economists are interested in whether alternative compensation plans are adopted primarily for tax, incentive or signaling reasons. As most compensation plans have tax implications, examining for other effects is difficult. In this paper we examine the stock market reaction to employee stock purchase plans which are ‘non-tax advantageous’ and adopted for incentive/signaling reasons. The results suggest that (1) equity-based compensation schemes have a positive effect on shareholder wealth for reasons other than tax reduction, (2) a motive for adopting these plans is to align managerial and shareholder interests, and (3) equity ownership motivates key executives more than subordinate employees.

This paper provides evidence on a previously unidentified source of managerial incentives: concerns about post-retirement board service. Both the likelihood that a retired CEO serves on his own board two years after departure, as well as the likelihood of serving as an outside director on other boards, are positively and strongly related to his performance while CEO. Retention on the CEO's own board depends primarily on stock returns, while service on outside boards is better explained by accounting returns. The evidence also suggests that firms consider ability in choosing board members.

We find that the average stock-market reaction to announcements of poison pills is positive when the board has a majority of outside directors and negative when it does not. The probability that a subsequent control contest is associated with an auction is also positively related to the fraction of outsiders on the board. These results are largely driven by directors who are retired executives from other companies. The evidence suggests that outside directors serve the interests of shareholders.

This study provides the first large-sample analysis of the stock-market reactions to interfirm litigation. When a suit is filed, the common stock of the typical defendant declines by about 1%, while the plaintiff experiences no significant gains. For the average pair of firms, the combined drop in value upon filing is $21 million. Much of the loss is regained if the suit is settled. The findings suggest that bargaining among firm claimants sometimes leads to very inefficient outcomes. Part of the leakage is explained by the costs of increased financial distress imposed on the defendant.