This paper analyzes the effect of different IPO mechanisms on the structure of share ownership and explores the role of underpricing and rationing in determining investors’ shareholdings. We focus on the agency problem that results when large institutions are the only investors capable of monitoring the firm whereas small shareholders free-ride on these activities. The major conclusion is that some well-known aspects of IPOs may be explained as rational responses by the issuer to the existence of regulatory constraints in public capital markets. There is a two-stage offering mechanism in which the investment banker, acting in the interests of the issuer, optimally rations the allotment of shares to small investors in order to capture the benefits associated with better monitoring by institutions. Importantly, in our model, the existence of underpricing (and oversubscription) is an indication that the issuer has received a higher ex ante price than would have been obtained through a competitive Walrasian-type offering process.

We show that firms with longer debt maturities earn risk premia not explained by unconditional factors. Embedding dynamic capital structure choices in an asset-pricing framework where the market price of risk evolves with the business cycle, we find that firms with long-term debt exhibit more countercyclical leverage. The induced covariance between betas and the market price of risk generates a maturity premium similar in size to our empirical estimate of 0.21% per month. We also provide direct evidence for the model mechanism and confirm that the maturity premium is consistent with observed leverage dynamics of long- and short-maturity firms.

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a laboratory, we show that asset markets assign a time-varying price to firms’ disaster risk exposure. The cross-section of stock returns reflected firms’ different exposure to the pandemic, as measured by their vulnerability to social distancing. As predicted by theory, realized and expected return differentials moved in opposite directions, initially widening and then narrowing. When inferred from market outcomes, firm resilience correlates mainly with exposure to social distancing: vulnerability to social distancing is priced in changes of firms’ expected returns, while measures of financial and environmental resilience are not.

This paper derives a stochastic discount factor for currency-hedged government bonds of developed markets by projecting returns onto the unconditional mean–variance efficient (UMVE) portfolio. Priced risks of international bonds differ fundamentally from those of currencies. The UMVE portfolio achieves a Sharpe ratio over twice the average of individual markets, with the market price of risk peaking during crises and periods with high inflation dispersion. While bond returns exhibit a strong factor structure, common sources of variation are only weakly connected to priced risks. Hedging unpriced risks in naive or factor-based strategies significantly improves Sharpe ratios, even under portfolio weight constraints.

We study a novel aspect of a firm’s capital structure, namely, the profile of its debt maturity dates. In a simple theoretical framework we show that the dispersion of debt maturities constitutes an important dimension of capital structure choice, driven by firm characteristics and debt rollover risk. Guided by these predictions we establish two main empirical results. First, using an exogenous shock to rollover risk, we document a significant increase in maturity dispersion for firms that need to roll over maturing debt. Second, we find strong support that maturities of newly issued debt are influenced by pre-existing maturity profiles.

Surprisingly little is known about the business cycle dynamics of leverage. The existing evidence documents that target leverage evolves pro-cyclically either for all firms or financially constrained ones. In contrast, we show that, on average, target leverage ratios evolve counter-cyclically once cyclicality is measured comprehensively, accounting for variation in explanatory variables and model parameters. These counter-cyclical dynamics are robust to different subsamples of firms, data samples, empirical models of leverage, and definitions of leverage. There is a fraction of 10–25% of firms with pro-cyclical dynamics whose characteristics are consistent with counter-cyclical dynamics for loss-given-default and probability of default.

This paper presents a framework to study how investors’ social concerns affect technology choices. Consequentialist preferences (disutility from aggregate harm) influence outcomes only if investors coordinate, unless internalized harm is independent of an investor’s mass. Non-consequentialist preferences (disutility from stockholdings) affect outcomes regardless of coordination. Both preferences have stronger impact when risk-sharing consequences of technology supply are small (e.g., highly correlated returns), and their effects cannot be inferred from cost-of-capital differences. When harm is stochastic, polluting firms may appear less risky to social investors. Depending on type and strength of social preferences, this can support or hinder the green transition.