We present evidence that a tax bill containing antitakeover provisions proposed by the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on October 13, 1987 and approved by the Committee on October 15 was the fundamental economic event causing the greater than 10% decline in the stock market on October 14–16, which arguably triggered the October 19 crash. The bill, which eventually passed without most of the antitakeover provisions, would have limited the deductibility of interest on debt incurred to finance corporate takeovers, leveraged buyouts and recapitalizations, and imposed other restrictions on hostile takeovers.

The authors have been editors of the Journal of Corporate Finance for nineteen years and are now stepping down. Here we offer some observations from our years as editors of the Journal. We hope they are useful to the new editors, the publisher, referees and authors. Thank you to all those who helped us in our task as editors.

Promotion decisions for professors are critical for any university and this is especially true when promotion also involves the granting of tenure. In this paper, we report the number of publications for Finance professors promoted to Associate or Full Professor at schools similar to the University of Georgia and also at the Top 10 Finance Departments. We also provide evidence on citations of the individuals' research. Our data reveal similarities in terms of the total number of articles published (between 6 and 8 for promotion to Associate Professor), the number of articles published in Finance “A” journals (about 3), and the number of citations between peer and aspirant schools. We find evidence that Associate Professors at Top 10 Departments have slightly more “A” articles and receive more citations to their work than those at lower ranked institutions. We find similar results for those promoted to Full Professor – similar publication records but with more “A” publications and citations for those in Top 10 Departments. Our paper provides up-to-date information on some of the factors considered for promotion of Finance professors. However, the much more difficult part of promotion decisions is determining the impact of past research and the potential for future contributions. In addition, teaching, service, and other departmental contributions are key to the promotion decision.

We evaluate the costs and benefits of restrictive covenants in bonds issued in 1989 and 1996. Our results indicate that firms with growth opportunities are more likely to seek to preserve flexibility in future financing activities by not including dividend or debt issuance restrictions in their bond contracts. We do not find, however, that the use of other restrictive covenants is significantly lower for firms with high investment opportunities. Instead, the use of these other covenants is primarily driven by the issuing firm's likelihood of financial distress. Our results emphasize that contractual relations between firms and bondholders reflect the specific needs of the contracting parties.

We use a well-developed dynamic panel generalized method of moments (GMM) estimator to alleviate endogeneity concerns in two aspects of corporate governance research: the effect of board structure on firm performance and the determinants of board structure. The estimator incorporates the dynamic nature of internal governance choices to provide valid and powerful instruments that address unobserved heterogeneity and simultaneity. We re-examine the relation between board structure and performance using the GMM estimator in a panel of 6,000 firms over a period from 1991 to 2003, and find no causal relation between board structure and current firm performance. We illustrate why other commonly used estimators that ignore the dynamic relationship between current governance and past firm performance may be biased. We discuss where it may be appropriate to consider the dynamic panel GMM estimator in corporate governance research, as well as caveats to its use.

Much of the research on corporate restructuring has examined the causes and aftermath of extreme changes in corporate governance such as takeovers and bankruptcy. In contrast, we study restructurings initiated in response to product market pressures by “normal” corporate governance mechanisms. Such “voluntary” restructurings, motivated by the discipline of the product market and internal corporate controls, will play a relatively more important role in the 1990s due to a weakening in the discipline of the takeover market. Our data suggest that the firms retrenched quickly and, on average, increased their focus. There is no evidence of abnormally high levels of forced turnover in top managers. There is, however, a significant and rapid cut of 5% in the labor force. Further, the cost of goods sold to sales and labor costs to sales ratios both decline rapidly, more than 5% in the first two years after the negative earnings. The firms cut research and development, increased investment, and also reduced their debt/asset level by over 8% in the first year after the negative earnings. We also document the reasons management and analysis reported for the negative earnings. Overwhelmingly the firms blame bad economic conditions and, to a lesser extent, foreign competition.

ABSTRACT We examine the impact of political, institutional, and economic factors on the choice between selling a state‐owned enterprise in the public capital market through a share issue privatization (SIP) and selling it in the private capital market in an asset sale. SIPs are more likely in less developed capital markets, for more profitable state‐owned enterprises, and where there are more protections of minority shareholders. Asset sales are more likely when there is less state control of the economy and when the firm is smaller. Our results suggest the importance of privatization activities in developing the equity markets of privatizing countries.