Knowledge that Transforms

As argued by Jensen (1993), the primary tasks of a firm’s board of directors are to advise, hire, fire and determine the level and form of managerial compensation. Managerial pay can be structured as part cash and in part be tied to a performance index, such as corporate earnings or the firm’s stock price. The latter effectively aligns the interest of managers with those of stockholders, which in turn reduces agency problems related to free cash flow, managerial time horizons and effort levels. At the same time, stock-based compensation increases managerial exposure to non-diversifiable risk, which may cause risk-averse managers to underinvest in risky projects. The trade-off between the benefits of managerial incentive alignment and the cost of underinvestment is largely an empirical issue, and the widespread observation that managerial compensation is primarily paid in cash 1 suggests that managerial risk aversion weighs heavily or that boards generally resort to substitute monitoring mechanisms. The paper by Angbazo and Narayanan (1997) is part of a rapidly growing empirical literature attempting to identify important cross-sectional determinants

In this paper we present and estimate a model of short-term interest rate volatility that encompasses both the level effect of Chan, Karolyi, Longstaff and Sanders (1992) and the conditional heteroskedasticity effect of the GARCH class of models. This flexible specification allows different effects to dominate as the level of the interest rate varies. We also investigate implications for the pricing of bond options. Our findings indicate that the inclusion of a volatility effect reduces the estimate of the level effect, and has option implications that differ significantly from the Chan, Karolyi, Longstaff and Sanders (1992) model.

As discussed in Merton (1993, Sections 5 and 6) and here in the section to follow, the effective delivery of many financial services depends critically on the credit-worthiness of the provider financial institution. Such service activities are said to be 'credit-sensitive'. The intermediary's credit standing can cause significant extemality-like effects on the various business activities of the intermediary, even when there are no interconnections among them. For example, the announcement by a U.S. investment bank that it is even thinking of entering into a new merchant-banking activity of extending bridge financing and other interim risk-taking positioning for restructuring firms can materially and negatively affect its over-the-counter derivatives-products business for corporate customers because those customers may perceive the risk of the merchant-banking involvement as jeopardizing the bank's ability to fulfill its obligations on its long-dated contractual agreements. Thus the potential merchant-banking business affects the derivative-products business although there is no overlap of personnel, customer base, location, or employee skill sets between them. The shared credit standing of the institution's individual businesses can therefore cause a significant failure ofthe principle of 'value-additivity', which complicates decentralization of the capital budgeting and financial decisions. The issue of monitoring credit quality are made more complex because those intermediaries such as banks and insurance companies that are principals to customer contractual agreements tend to be 'opaque' institutions, as defined in Ross (1989) and Merton