Using survey data on secured funding arrangements provided by broker–dealers for their clients—a class of contracts that includes bilateral repo—we document that financing rates, collateral haircuts, lending maturities, and position limits move strongly together over time and across asset classes. Liquidity of the underlying securities, as opposed to their volatility or credit risk, is the main driver of this behavior, with dealer balance-sheet constraints also playing a role in the funding of less-liquid security types. A simple model of dealer–client interaction rationalizes these findings. Instrumenting with changes in market conventions, we find that funding conditions had little effect on cash securities markets between 2011 and 2019, but the tightening of terms during the market stress of early 2020 likely impaired liquidity and reduced asset returns to some degree.

Under what conditions will a multinational corporation alter its operations to manage its risk exposure? We show that multinational firms will engage in operational hedging only when both exchange rate uncertainty and demand uncertainty are present. Operational hedging is less important for managing short-term exposures, since demand uncertainty is lower in the short term. Operational hedging is also less important for commodity-based firms, which face price but not quantity uncertainty. When the fixed costs of establishing a plant are low or the variability of the exchange rate is high, a firm may benefit from establishing plants in both the domestic and foreign location. Capacity allocated to the foreign location relative to the domestic location will increase when the variability of foreign demand increases relative to the variability of domestic demand or when the expected profit margin is larger. For firms with plants in both a domestic and foreign location, the foreign currency cash flow generally will not be independent of the exchange rate and consequently the optimal financial hedging policy cannot be implemented with forward contracts alone. We show that the optimal financial hedging policy can be implemented using foreign currency call and put options and forward contracts.

While intercorporate shareownership is common among publicly traded firms, systematic empirical evidence on this particular aspect of corporate ownership structure is sparse. Based largely on aggregated ownership data provided by various stock exchanges, we know that intercorporate holdings represent a relatively large proportion (above 40%) of the total equity value of exchange- listed firms in Japan and Germany, and a relatively low proportion (less than 10%) in the U.S. and the U.K. Thus, the Anglo-American corporate governance system appears to produce substantially lower levels of intercorporate shareholdings than does the German– Japanese governance model. While financial institutions in Germany and Japan play an integral role in the governance structures of those countries, securities laws inspired by early populist sentiments in the U.S. have prevented American financial institutions from playing a similar active role.1 Much like the Anglo-American system, securities laws in Norway, the empirical laboratory of Bøhren and Norli (1997), also restrict the equity ownership and direct corporate governance participation of financial institutions. Perhaps as a result the level of intercorporate

We show that acquirer returns are significantly higher in stock-swap acquisitions of difficult-to-value targets, as measured by R&D intensity and idiosyncratic return volatility. This finding contributes to an explanation of the determinants of, and value gains from, using stock as a method of payment. The effects of target-valuation uncertainty on both the method of payment and the market reaction to acquisitions are more likely to be apparent in samples of private acquisitions, as these effects can be masked in samples of acquisitions of publicly held targets. Nevertheless, our results hold for publicly traded targets in multivariate analysis.

With zero capital structure rebalancing costs, dynamic trade-off theory predicts that firms stay at their leverage targets with more profitable firms staying at higher leverage. This prediction is rejected by the robustly negative correlation between leverage and profitability. When rebalancing costs are added to this theory, it predicts a positive leverage–profitability correlation only in periods where companies pay these costs and actively rebalance their capital structures. However, we show that the correlation is negative when firms issue debt and distribute the proceeds to shareholders—precisely the case where the theory predicts it should be positive. Our results thus resurrect the leverage–profitability puzzle.

We test whether high-frequency net-debt issuers (HFIs)—public industrial companies with relatively low issuance costs and high debt-financing benefits—manage leverage toward long-run targets. Our answer is they do not: (1) the leverage–profitability correlation is negative even in quarters with leverage rebalancing; (2) the speed-of-adjustment to target leverage deviations is no higher for HFIs than for low-frequency net-debt issuers; and (3) under-leveraged HFIs do not speed up rebalancing activity in significant investment periods. Thus, even in the subset of firms most likely to follow dynamic trade-off theory, the theory does not appear to hold.

We show in any economy trading options, with investors having mean-variance preferences, that there are arbitrage opportunities resulting from negative prices for out of the money call options. The theoretical implication of this inconsistency is that mean-variance analysis is vacuous. The practical implications of this inconsistency are investigated by developing an option pricing model for a CAPM type economy. It is observed that negative call prices begin to appear at strikes that are two standard deviations out of the money. Such out-of-the money options often trade. For near money options, the CAPM option pricing model is shown to permit estimation of the mean return on the underlying asset, its volatility and the length of the planning horizon. The model is estimated on S&P 500 futures options data covering the period January 1992–September 1994. It is found that the mean rate of return though positive, is poorly identified. The estimates for the volatility are stable and average 11%, while those for the planning horizon average 0.95. The hypothesis that the planning horizon is a year can not be rejected. The one parameter Black–Scholes model also marginally outperforms the three parameter CAPM model with average percentage errors being respectively, 3.74% and 4.5%. This out performance of the Black–Scholes model is taken as evidence consistent with the mean-variance analysis being vacuous in a practical sense as well.

We consider a model in which a security issuer can manipulate information observed by a credit rating agency (CRA). We show that stricter screening by the CRA can sometimes lead to increased manipulation by the issuer. Accounting for the issuer’s behavior pulls optimal CRA screening toward the extremes of laxness or stringency. Surprisingly, an improvement in prior asset quality can result in more rating errors. In a two-period version of the model, stricter screening can result in more short-run rating errors. Our results suggest complex interplay between issuer and CRA behavior, complicating the evaluation of CRA policy effectiveness.

There is a tenuous link between market efficiency and economic efficiency in that stock prices are more informative when the information has less social value. We investigate this link in the context of CEO turnover. Our theoretical model predicts that, when the board’s monitoring intensity and the informed trader’s information decision are jointly endogenized, stock price informativeness is negatively related to the board’s monitoring effort. Our empirical tests provide supporting evidence for this negative effect. Moreover, using the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) as a quasi-natural experiment, we find that SOX, while strengthening corporate governance, has a negative effect on stock price informativeness, especially among firms with complex organizational structures.

This article investigates the impact of changes in risk perception on bond markets triggered by the 2007–08 financial crisis. Using a methodology novel to empirical finance, we quantify the increase in credit spreads caused by changes in risk pricing and changes in risk factors. The lasting increase in credit spreads is almost exclusively due to time-varying prices of risk. We interpret this as a change in risk perception which provides a possible solution to the credit spread puzzle. Default premia spiked during the crisis and did not return to their pre-crisis levels. Liquidity premia increased during and after the crisis.