This study examines aspects of pay and promotion in corporate hierarchies in the context of tournament theory. Evidence supports the tournament perspective in that most positions are filled through promotion and pay rises strongly with hierarchical level. Furthermore, the winner's prize in the CEO tournament increases with the number of competitors for the CEO position. Not all evidence is supportive: the square of the number of competitors is negatively associated with the CEO prize. Additionally, firms do not appear to maintain short-term promotion incentives, as lengthier time in position prior to a promotion reduces the pay increase from the promotion. Copyright 2001 by University of Chicago Press.

In this paper we critically evaluate the standard-setting inferences that can be drawn from value relevance research studies that are motivated by standard setting. Our evaluation concentrates on the theories of accounting, standard setting and valuation that underlie those inferences. Unless those underlying theories are descriptive of accounting, standard setting and valuation, the value-relevance literature's reported associations between accounting numbers and common equity valuations have limited implications or inferences for standard setting; they are mere associations. We argue that the underlying theories are not descriptive and hence drawing standard-setting inferences is difficult.

This discussion reflects on the state and future of empirical tax research in accounting, complementing and extending the work of Shackelford and Shevlin ( J. Acc. Econom. 31/32 (2001)). Specifically, this discussion (1) examines the scope of Shackelford and Shevlin (J. Acc. Econom. 31/32 (2001)), (2) discusses what I view to be the main contributions and limitations in the extant tax research, and (3) charts several directions for future research.

The empirical managerial accounting literature has failed to produce a substantive cumulative body of knowledge. This literature has not matured beyond describing practice to developing and testing theories explaining observed practice, like other areas of accounting research. While the lack of publicly available data is a popular reason for this literature's underdeveloped state, it is not the only one. Other conjectures include: its inductive approach, researchers’ incentives, its use of non-economics-based frameworks, the lack of empirically testable theories, and its emphasis on decision making, not control.

German dividends typically carry a tax credit which makes the dividend worth 42.86% more to a taxable German shareholder than to a tax-exempt or foreign shareholder. This results in a penalty for foreign investors who buy and hold German dividend-paying stocks. I document that, as a result of the credit, the ex-day drop exceeds the dividend by more than one-half of the tax credit, and show that futures and option prices embed more than one-half of the tax credit. The existence of the credit creates opportunities for cross-border tax arbitrage—in which foreign holders of German stock transfer the dividend to German shareholders—and implies that it is tax efficient for foreign investors to hold derivatives rather than investing directly in German stocks. The empirical findings are consistent with costly tax arbitrage activity by German investors, who face tax risk due to antiarbitrage rules. Since dividend tax credits exist in many other countries, the findings are potentially of broad interest.

This study examines the impact of regulatory capital and several of its determinants (i.e., earnings, loan loss provisions, charge-offs and growth) on bank managers' financing decisions and investors' interpretations of those decisions. The analysis is related to two streams of research. We add to the corporate finance literature that seeks to explain the market's reaction to security issuances by developing and testing a refined set of predictions of the demand for debt and equity capital using a sample of capital-regulated firms (banks). We extend the accounting literature that links regulatory capital-management decisions with bank performance by examining whether investors infer that performance. We find that bank managers' financing choices reflect their private information regarding the levels of regulatory capital, earnings, and charge-offs in the issuance year. We document a negative market reaction to capital-increasing issuances and a positive reaction to capital-decreasing issuances. A cross-sectional analysis of that market reaction indicates that investors infer managers' expectations of earnings in the issuance year.

Abstract This study examines the impact of regulatory capital and several of its determinants (i.e., earnings, loan loss provisions, charge‐offs and growth) on bank managers' financing decisions and investors' interpretations of those decisions. The analysis is related to two streams of research. We add to the corporate finance literature that seeks to explain the market's reaction to security issuances by developing and testing a refined set of predictions of the demand for debt and equity capital using a sample of capital‐regulated firms (banks). We extend the accounting literature that links regulatory capital‐management decisions with bank performance by examining whether investors infer that performance. We find that bank managers' financing choices reflect their private information regarding the levels of regulatory capital, earnings, and charge‐offs in the issuance year. We document a negative market reaction to capital‐increasing issuances and a positive reaction to capital‐decreasing issuances. A cross‐sectional analysis of that market reaction indicates that investors infer managers' expectations of earnings in the issuance year.

Recently, a number of researchers (Christiano and Eichenbaum, 1992; Christiano et al., 1996a,b, 1997; Evans and Marshall, 1998; Strongin, 1995; Pagan and Robertson, 1995; Brunner, 1994) claim to have found evidence of a statistically significant liquidity effect in a recursive structural VAR using nonborrowed reserves (NBR). It is claimed that innovations to NBR reflect the exogenous policy actions of the Fed. This paper argues that the opposite is true. Specifically, I show that the Fed has an incentive to offset bank-initiated discount window borrowing when it implements the Federal Open Market Committee’s policy directive, and that it has done so since the late 1950s. This practice has created a negative contemporaneous covariance between NBR and the funds rate that has been incorrectly attributed to the liquidity effect. By showing that these models capture the endogenous response of the Fed to bank borrowing on NBR, rather than the effect of exogenous policy actions on the funds rate, this paper also resolves the puzzle of the vanishing liquidity effect noted by Pagan and Robertson (1995) and Christiano (1995).