Knowledge that Transforms

We develop a model in which stock repurchases serve as a defense against takeovers by signaling the manager’s private information about the value of the firm. The manager repurchases shares to block a takeover only if the cost of doing so is not too high. Since the cost is inversely related to the value of the firm under his management, a repurchase signals that the value of the stock is high, blocking a takeover. While a repurchase increases the expected value of the stock, it also makes the stock riskier. The model also implies that there are too few takeovers for efficiency.

This article documents an apparent pricing anomaly involving 94 percent, 30-year Treasury bonds during the months of May and June 1986. During this period, the price of the 94s rose sharply relative to the prices of other long-term Treasury bonds and created a potential arbitrage opportunity. In addition, owners of the 94 bonds were able to borrow at a zero interest rate bypledging their bonds. Detailed examination reveals that this relative pricing anomaly cannot be attributed to changes in the level or term structure of interest rates or to differences between the bonds with respect to liquidity, taxation, or duration.

Futures contracts often include a variety of delivery options that allow participants flexibility in satisfying the contract. These options have the potential to broaden the appeal of the contact. However, if these options are valuable, they may reduce the hedging effectiveness of the contract. This article analyzes the GNMA CDR futures contract that appears to have failed because of flaws in the contract's design. For the first 6 years following its introduction, the contract attracted significant and increasing volume, but, subsequently, the volume declined to almost zero. Over the years during which the volume experienced its most dramatic decline, the Treasury-bond futures contract provided a better hedge for current coupon GNMA securities than did the GNMA CDR futures contract. And, over this same period, the value of the quality option embedded in the contract often exceeded 5 percent of the futures price and reached a level of 19 percent at one point. We interpret the evidence to indicate that the contract failed because the delivery options reduced the hedging effectiveness of the contract for current coupon mortgage securities.

We derive and test a dynamic discrete-time model of asset returns. Both the risks of individual securities and equilibrium risk premia change predictably in the model, but these changes can be attributed to movements in the returns and prices of only two well-diversified portfolios. Any other components of returns should be unpredictable. Using the generalized method of moments, the model is estimated and tested on portfolios of equities. We find the data supportive of the model’s restrictions, even when instruments designed to capture the January effect are employed.

This article presents a simple model of the innovation of new futures contracts by transaction volume-maximizing futures exchanges in incomplete markets under uncertainty, with mean-variance preferences and proportional transactions costs. We characterize the set of Nash equilibria for a number of exchanges simultaneously or sequentially choosing contracts. The optimal monopolistic contract design is shown to be Pareto-optimal. An example shows the failure of Pareto optimality for a particular Nash equilibrium. Likewise, in a monopolistic multiperiod setting, an example shows the failure of Pareto optimality given an incentive for the exchange to induce turnover.

We present a model of corporate acquisitions in which initially uninformed bidders must incur costs to learn their (independent) valuations of a potential takeover target. The first bidder makes either a preemptive bid that will deter the second bidderfrom investigating or a lower bid that will induce the second bidder to investigate and possibly compete. We show that the expected price of the target may be higher when the first bidder makes a deterring bid than when there is competitive bidding. Hence, by weakening the first bidder’s incentive to choose a preemptive bid, regulatory and management policies to assist competing bidders may reduce both the expected takeover price and social welfare.

When a firm is in financial distress, in most cases a set of mutually advantageous reorganization plans exist. This article shows that the bankruptcy code, by providing rules governing the negotiation process, yields a unique solution to the reorganization process. In addition, the structure imposed by the code mitigates the holdout problem created by the individual claimant's divergent incentives.

This article develops a model of competitive bidding with a resale market. The primary market is modeled as a common-value auction, in which bidders participate for the purpose of resale. After the auction the winning bidders sell the objects in a secondary market, and the buyers in the secondary market receive information about the bids submitted in the auction. The effect of this information linkage between the primary auction and the secondary market on bidding behavior in the primary auction is examined. The auctioneer’s expected revenues from organizing the primary market as a discriminatory auction versus a uniform-price auction are compared, and sufficient conditions under which the uniform-price auction will yield higher expected revenues are obtained. An example of our model, with the primary market organized as a discriminatory auction, is the U.S. Treasury bill market.

This article develops and estimates a simple model for monthly expected stock returns that relies on the rapidly decaying structure of shorter-horizon (weekly) expected returns. The most striking aspect of our finds is that the rapid mean reversion in short-horizon expected returns implies much greater variation through time in monthly expected returns than has been documented in earlier studies. For instance, during the 1962 to 1985 period, over 25 percent of the return variance of small firms can be explained by time variation in expected returns.

This article develops a model in which patterns in buy and sell volume, order imbalances, and expected price changes arise endogenously. The model covers cases in which the market maker is competitive and is a monopolist. Our results provide an explanation for the existence of patterns in mean returns within the trading day and across trading days.