Knowledge that Transforms

To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
1179 results ✕ Clear filters

Forward contracts and futures contracts

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(4), 373-382
This paper provides a detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between forward contracts and futures contracts. Under frictionless markets and continuous trading, simple arbitrage arguments are invoked to value forward contracts, to relate forward prices and spot prices, and to relate forward prices and futures prices. We also argue that forward prices need not equal futures prices unless default free interest rates are deterministic.

Information aggregation in a noisy rational expectations economy

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(3), 221-235
This paper analyzes a general equilibrium model of a competitive security market in which traders possess independent pieces of information about the return of a risky asset. Each trader conditions his estimate of the return both on his own private source of information and price, which in equilibrium serves as a ‘noisy’ aggregator of the total information observed by all traders. A closed-form characterization of the rational expectations equilibrium is presented. A counter-example to the existence of ‘fully revealing’ equilibrium is developed.

Common stock repurchases and market signalling

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(2), 139-183
This paper examines the pricing behavior of securities of firms which repurchase their own shares. The results are consistent with a market in which investors price securities such that expected arbitrage profits are precluded. The results are also consistent with the hypothesis that firms offer premia for their own shares mainly in order to signal positive information, and that the market uses the premium, the target fraction and the fraction of insider holdings as signals in order to price securities around the announcement date. The observation that repurchases via tender offer are followed by abnormal increases in earnings per share and that mainly small firms engage in repurchase tender offers, provides further support for the signalling hypothesis.

Option pricing in a lognormal securities market with discrete trading

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(1), 75-101
This paper derives a call option valuation equation assuming discrete trading in securities markets where the underlying asset and market returns are bivariate lognormally distributed and investors have increasing, concave utility functions exhibiting skewness preference. Since the valuation does not require the continouus time riskfree hedging of Black and Scholes, nor the discrete time riskfree hedging of Cox, Ross and Rubinstein, market effects are introduced into the option valuation relation. The new option valuation seems to correct for the systematic mispricing of well-in and well-out of the money options by the Black and Scholes option pricing formula.

The relation between forward prices and futures prices

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(4), 321-346
This paper consolidates the results of some recent work on the relation between forward prices and futures prices. It develops a number of propositions characterizing the two prices. These propositions contain several testable implications about the difference between forward and futures prices. Many of the propositions show that equilibrium forward and futures prices are equal to the values of particular assets, even though they are not in themselves asset prices. The paper then illustrates these results in the context of two valuation models and discusses the effects of taxes and other institutional factors.

Convertible calls and security returns

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(3), 237-264
The study examines the impact of convertible security calls on securityholder's wealth. On average common stock values fall by approximately two percent at the announcements of convertible debt calls, but common stockholder's wealth is unaffected by convertible preferred stock calls. These findings are consistent with a corporate tax effect. A small average decrease in firm value is also found at the announcements of convertible debt calls. The study raises, but leaves unanswered, the interesting question of what motivates managers to make capital structure decisions that reduce stockholder wealth and firm value.

Optimal dealer pricing under transactions and return uncertainty

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(1), 47-73
The paper examines the optimal behavior of a single dealer who is faced with a stochastic demand to trade (modeled by a continuous time Poisson jump process) and facing return risk on his stock and on the rest of his portfolio (modeled by diffusion processes). Using stochastic dynamic programming, we derive the optimal bid and ask prices that maximize the dealer's expected utility of terminal wealth as a function of the state in which he finds himself. The relationship of the bid and ask prices to inventory of the dealer, instantaneous variance of return, stochastic arrival of transactions and other variables is examined.

Does the investment interest limitation explain the existence of dividends?

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(3), 265-269
Miller and Scholes have shown that under certain conditions the Federal Income Tax taxes dividend income at a rate no higher than the rate on capital gains. Tabulations of actual 1977 tax returns show that the special circumstances under which this can occur apply to recipients of two and one half percent of dividend income and that no dominant role may therefore be ascribed to their hypothesis in the determination of corporate dividend policy.

The relationship between return and market value of common stocks

Journal of Financial Economics 1981 9(1), 3-18
This study examines the empirical relationship between the return and the total market value of NYSE common stocks. It is found that smaller firms have had higher risk adjusted returns, on average, than larger firms. This ‘size effect’ has been in existence for at least forty years and is evidence that the capital asset pricing model is misspecified. The size effect is not linear in the market value; the main effect occurs for very small firms while there is little difference in return between average sized and large firms. It is not known whether size per se is responsible for the effect or whether size is just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size.