We estimate probabilities of bankruptcy for 5784 industrial firms in the period 1988–2002 in a model where common equity is viewed as a down-and-out barrier option on the firm's assets. Asset values and volatilities as well as firm-specific bankruptcy barriers are simultaneously backed out from the prices of traded equity. Implied barriers are significantly positive and monotonic in the firm's leverage and asset volatility. Our default probabilities display better calibration and discriminatory power than the ones inferred in a standard Black and Scholes [Black, F., Scholes, M., 1973. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J. Pol. Econ. 81, 637–659]/Merton [Merton, R.C., 1974. On the pricing of corporate debt: the risk structure of interest rates. J. Finance 29, 449–470] and KMV frameworks. However, accounting-based measures such as Altman Z- and Z″-scores outperform structural models in 1-year-ahead bankruptcy predictions, but lose relevance as the forecast horizon is extended.

I wish to express my appreciation to thefollowingfor their comments and suggestions either in their capacity as the referees of this journal or otherwise: Anthony Atkinson, Zvi Griliches, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Rudolph Blitz, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, James Meade, Jacob Mincer, Franco Modigliani, Naomi Perlman, John Rawls, Paul Schultz, Gerald Sazama, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Taubman, Lester Thurow, and Charles Wilson. None of them, however, bears any responsibility for my errors and my appraisal of different theories. I dedicate this paper to the memory of Harry G. Johnson, my teacher, who died at the early age of 53 on 9 May 1977, a few months after we had exchanged correspondence on this survey and had plans for further discussion, especially on the development of his ideas about cultural inheritance. Alas, that was the end.

Although the owners of publicly traded companies have had the right to offer shareholder proposals using Rule 14a-8 for several decades, the effectiveness of the rule has been frequently questioned because few of these proposals received substantial support from other shareholders and even fewer have been implemented by boards. Using new data from the 2002–2004 proxy seasons, we analyze shareholder voting patterns on these proposals, board reactions to them, and market responses. We find some big changes from earlier periods: many more proposals are receiving majority shareholder support during our sample period relative to earlier studies, and this support has translated into directors implementing more of the actions called for by shareholders. In particular, boards are increasingly willing to remove important anti-takeover defenses, such as the classified board and poison pill, in response to shareholders' requests, something rarely seen in the past. Despite the increase in support for shareholder proposals and board action in response, we find small and insignificant stock market reaction. We conclude that shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 have an emerging role in reducing agency costs by increasing director responsiveness to shareholder concerns to open the market more fully to corporate control.

This essay reviews Lucian A. Bebchuk and Jesse M. Fried's Pay without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation. Bebchuk and Fried criticize the standard view of executive compensation, in which executives negotiate contracts with shareholders that provide incentives that motivate them to maximize the shareholders' welfare. In contrast, Bebchuk and Fried argue that executive compensation is more consistent with executives who control their own boards and who maximize their own compensation subject to an “outrage constraint.” They provide a host of evidence consistent with this alternative viewpoint. The book can be evaluated from both positive and normative perspectives. From a positive perspective, much of the evidence they present, especially about the camouflage and risk-taking aspects of executive compensation systems, is fairly persuasive. However, from a normative perspective, the book conveys the idea that policy changes can dramatically improve executive compensation systems and consequently overall corporate performance. It is unclear to me how effective potential reforms designed to achieve such changes are likely to be in practice.

This paper investigates the use of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing by firms reorganizing under Chapter 11. A model is developed in which there is asymmetric information between the creditors of a distressed firm and its management. In this context, it is demonstrated that reliance on DIP financing resolves informational asymmetries regarding the true economic value of distressed firms. The model's conclusions are empirically supported in the paper and by results of extant research. The signaling role of DIP financing is evidenced both by the positive stock price reaction to DIP announcements and the fact that firms employing DIP financing have more successful reorganizations.

The random assignment of cadets to social groups at West Point provides a rare opportunity to highlight potentially misleading estimates of social group effects found in many studies. Estimates of contemporaneous group effects in human capital production are typically positive and significant; however, evidence in this study suggests that occurrences common to a group may account for much of this correlation. Models that address these biases provide little evidence of group effects in academic performance, although there is evidence of group influences in choice outcomes such as the selection of academic major and the decision to remain in the Army.

We examine whether financial reporting frequency affects the speed with which accounting information is reflected in security prices. For a sample of 28,824 reporting-frequency observations from 1950 to 1973, we find little evidence of differences in timeliness between firms reporting quarterly and those reporting semiannually, even after controlling for self-selection. However, firms that voluntarily increased reporting frequency from semiannual to quarterly experienced increased timeliness, while firms whose increase was mandated by the SEC did not. We conclude that there is little evidence to support the claim that regulation forcing firms to report more frequently improves earnings timeliness.

Using three different measures of conservatism, we document that (i) the percentage of inside directors is negatively related to conservatism, and (ii) the percentage of outside directors’ shareholdings is positively related to conservatism. Our results hold after controlling for industry, firm size, leverage, growth opportunities, institutional ownership, inside director ownership, and unobservable firm characteristics that are stable over time. Overall, the evidence is consistent with accounting conservatism assisting directors in reducing agency costs of firms.

We analyze the loss-reserving practices of 562 insurance companies in 1993 to assess the relation between client influence and auditor oversight. Consistent with Petroni [1992. Management's response to the differential costs and benefits of optimistic reporting in the property-casualty insurance industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 15, 485–508.], we find that financially struggling insurers tend to under-reserve. However, this behavior is attenuated when the weak insurer is important to the local practice office of the auditor. This result holds across various measures of client influence and supports the contention of Reynolds and Francis [2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting divisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30, 375–400.] that auditors allow less accounting discretion to their larger clients.