We wish to acknowledge the help of three referees and of John Pencavel on several earlier drafts, as well as the assistance of the modelers, whose work is referred to in the paper. They corrected our lack of understanding of their work and provided many other helpful comments. Excellent research and bibliographical assistance have been provided by Debbie Fretz, Radwan Shaban, and Janet Stotsky. Helpful comments have been made by Charles Ballard, Michael Boskin, Lans Bovenberg, Sylvester Damus, Harvey Galper, Glenn Harrison, Gordon Lenjosek, Jack Mutti, Serena Ng, T. N. Srinivasan, Charles Stuart, and Eric Toder. The authors also acknowledgefinancial support from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the National Science Foundation, International Business Machines, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council: Ottawa, Canada.

We test for fire-sale tendencies in automatic bankruptcy auctions. We find evidence consistent with fire-sale discounts when the auction leads to piecemeal liquidation, but not when the bankrupt firm is acquired as a going concern. Neither industry-wide distress nor the industry affiliation of the buyer affect prices in going-concern sales. Bids are often structured as leveraged buyouts, which relaxes liquidity constraints and reduces bidder underinvestment incentives in the presence of debt overhang. Prices in “prepack” auctions (sales agreements negotiated prior to bankruptcy filing) are on average lower than for in-auction going-concern sales, suggesting that prepacks may help preempt excessive liquidation when the auction is expected to be illiquid. Prepack targets have a greater industry-adjusted probability of refiling for bankruptcy, indicating that liquidation preemption is a risky strategy.

We examine the impact of geographical proximity on the acquisition decisions of US public firms over the period 1990–2003. Transactions where the acquirer and target firms are located within 100 km of each other are classified as local transactions. We find that acquirer returns in local transactions are more than twice that in non-local transactions. The higher return to local acquirer is not explained by related, either horizontal or vertical, industry transactions, and appears to be related to information advantages arising from geographical proximity. These information advantages facilitate acquisition of targets that, on average, create higher overall return. The higher return to local acquirers is preserved by the use of target termination fee contracts.

We test the market timing theory of capital structure using an earnings-based valuation model that allows us to separate equity mispricing from growth options and time-varying adverse selection; thus avoiding the multiple interpretations of book-to-market ratio. We find that equity market mispricing plays a significant, if not dominant, role in the security choice decision. Our results are robust to the inclusion of proxies for time-varying growth options and alternate methods of measuring misvaluation.

This paper combines an exogenous shock to the supply of subsidized credit with unique loan-level data from the export sector in Pakistan to identify the impact and allocation of such financial incentives. The removal of subsidized credit causes a significant decline in the exports of privately owned firms, while the exports of large, publicly listed, and group network firms are unaffected. Publicly listed firms make no significant adjustments to their balance sheets, and only their profits are reduced, indicating that they are financially unconstrained. Nearly half of all subsidized loans are assigned to such firms, implying a substantial misallocation of credit and an output loss to privately owned firms of 0.75% of GDP. Productivity differences do not explain the heterogeneous effects across firms.

There are competing theories as to whether managers learn from stock prices. Dye and Sridhar (2002), for example, argue that capital markets can be better informed than the firm itself, while Roll [Roll, R., 1986, “The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers,” Journal of Business 59, 97–216.] argues managers may ignore market signals due to hubris. In this paper, we examine whether managers listen to the market in making major corporate investments, and whether agency costs and corporate governance mechanisms help explain managers' propensity to listen. We find that, on average, managers listen to the market: they are more likely to cancel investments when the market reacts unfavorably to the related announcement. Further, we find mixed evidence consistent with the notion that managers' propensity to listen is related to agency costs. We find that firms tend to listen to the market more when more of their shares are held by large blockholders, and when their CEOs have higher pay-performance sensitivities.

We find that relative to fundamentals, dual-class firms trade at lower prices than do single-class firms, both at the IPO and for at least the subsequent 5 years. The lower prices attached to duals do not foreshadow abnormally low stock or accounting returns. Moreover, some types of CEO turnover are less frequent among duals, and in general CEO turnover is sensitive to firm performance for singles but not for duals. Finally, when duals unify their share classes, statistically and economically significant value gains occur. Collectively, our results suggest that the governance associated with dual-class equity influences the pricing of duals.

This study examines whether straight-line depreciation, relative to accelerated depreciation, causes non-executive managers to make non-value-maximizing capital investment decisions. To do this, I conduct experiments in which managers must decide whether to continue using an existing asset or invest in a replacement asset. By design, replacing the existing asset yields higher cash flows and managers are aware of this fact. However, if the asset is replaced, then the greater remaining book value under straight-line depreciation relative to accelerated depreciation causes earnings to be lower. Lower earnings and psychological forces may push managers of firms that use straight-line depreciation away from making the economically efficient capital investment decision. The results suggest that managers of firms that use straight-line depreciation are less likely to invest in a replacement asset than are managers of firms that use accelerated depreciation. Further, the results suggest that managers perceive that an asset depreciated using straight-line depreciation has provided less retrospective utility than an asset depreciated using accelerated depreciation. In turn, I find that depreciation method-induced differences in managers' retrospective utility perceptions influence their prospective utility perceptions, which, in turn, influence managers' asset replacement decisions. By theoretically and empirically linking firms' depreciation method choice to managers' capital investment decisions, I provide evidence that a seemingly innocuous choice made for external financial reporting purposes can cause managers to make non-value-maximizing capital investment decisions.

This paper suggests that the US recovery from the Great Depression was driven by a shift in expectations. This shift was caused by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policy actions. On the monetary policy side, Roosevelt abolished the gold standard and—even more importantly—announced the explicit objective of inflating the price level to pre-Depression levels. On the fiscal policy side, Roosevelt expanded real and deficit spending, which made his policy objective credible. These actions violated prevailing policy dogmas and initiated a policy regime change as in Sargent (1983) and Temin and Wigmore (1990). The economic consequences of Roosevelt are evaluated in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with nominal frictions.