Knowledge that Transforms

Many experiments have found that participants take more investment risk if they see returns less frequently, see portfolio-level returns (rather than each individual asset's returns), or see long-horizon (rather than one-year) historical return distributions. In contrast, we find that such information aggregation treatments do not affect total equity investment when we make the investment environment more realistic than in prior experiments. Previously documented aggregation effects are not robust to changes in the risky asset's return distribution or the introduction of a multi-day delay between portfolio choice and return realizations.

We develop a dynamic agency model of a public corporation. Managers underinvest because of risk aversion. They smooth rents and payout. They do not exploit interest tax shields fully. The interactions of investment, debt, and payout decisions can change drastically depending on managers’ preferences. Managers with power utility set investment, debt, and payout proportional to the firm’s net worth, generating a constant (possibly negative) net debt ratio. With exponential utility, investment decisions are separated from decisions about debt and payout. More profitable firms become cash cows, and less profitable firms accumulate debt, as in a pecking-order model.

I study asset price amplification in an asymmetric information model. Entrepreneurs issue debt to finance investments in a physical asset. They have private information about their success probabilities. For a given debt level, higher asset prices require entrepreneurs to invest more of their own funds. This makes bad entrepreneurs more reluctant to mimic good ones; as a result, good entrepreneurs increase their equilibrium leverage and invest more, and this amplifies the initial asset price increase. This model generates predictions about the credit market that are qualitatively consistent with existing evidence. Received April 24, 2015; editorial decision June 15, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

This paper shows that product market competition has two opposing effects on asset returns. The first relates to the pro-cyclical nature of the value destruction from expansion of competitors, which lowers exposure to systematic risk in more competitive industries. The second is related to the narrower profit margins due to competition, which increase exposure to systematic risk. We find that the first effect dominates the second, so that firms in more competitive industries generally earn lower asset returns. Our results are robust to using five alternative measures of competition and to controlling for the sample selection bias of publicly-listed firms.

We introduce uncertainty into Holmstrom and Milgrom (1987) to study optimal long-term contracting with learning. In a dynamic relationship, the agent’s shirking not only reduces current performance, but also increases the agent’s information rent due to the persistent belief manipulation effect. We characterize the optimal contract using the dynamic programming technique in which information rent is the unique state variable. In the optimal contract, the optimal effort is front-loaded and stochastically decreases over time. Furthermore, the optimal contract exhibits an option-like feature in that incentives increase after good performance. Implications about managerial incentives and asset management compensations are discussed. Received August 31, 2015; editorial decision October 20, 2016 by Editor Francesca Cornelli.

We study the effect of a bond’s place in its issuer’s maturity structure on credit risk. Using a structural model as motivation, we argue that bonds due relatively late in their issuers’ maturity structure have greater credit risk than do bonds due relatively early. Empirically, we find robust evidence that these later bonds have larger yield spreads and greater comovement with equity and that the magnitude of the effects is consistent with model predictions for investment-grade bonds. Our results highlight the importance of bond-specific credit risk for understanding corporate bond prices. Received January 1, 2016; editorial decision June 6, 2017 by Editor Robin Greenwood.