This paper models inside trading regulation with a well-defined objective and introduces an explicit measure of regulatory strictness. The regulator's objective is to minimize the trading loss of liquidity traders. With market professionals whose information-based trading is not regulated, the objective of regulation can be achieved by promoting competition between these market professionals and the insider. When stricter regulation induces improvement in the precision of the market professionals' information, tolerating some insider trading can be the optimal regulatory policy. It is also shown that allowing more market professionals to enter the market and disclosing information to them are as effective in achieving the regulatory objective as the direct restriction of insider trading.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D82, G10, L13

We show that in an imperfect information environment the equity value of an impaired bank may increase or decrease when it is required to meet a capital standard. Regardless of the change in the bank's equity value, however, its stock price will fall in response to a forced recapitalization, consistent with recent empirical evidence. Simulations of our model suggest that this stock price decline is likely to be larger the smaller is the share of ownership held by the managers of the bank, also consistent with recent empirical evidence in the literature. Our model further predicts a rise in bank's non-interest expenses following a required recapitalization. Given the increase in the regulator's exposure that would accompany a reduction in the bank's market value of equity, the regulator may choosenotto enforce the regulation. Hence, capital regulation may be time-inconsistent in this situation and consequently not have its intended risk-mitigating incentives

When formal regulation is weak or absent, communities often use other channels to induce pollution abatement by local factories in a process of 'informal regulation.' The resulting 'pollution equilibrium' reflects the relative bargaining power of the community and the plant. This note uses Indonesian data from 1989-90 on plant-level organic water pollution to test the informal regulation hypothesis

The papers by Venkatachalam (1996) and Aboody (1996) provide some interesting evidence on issues that are important to accounting regulators as well as accounting academics. However, for econometric as well as economic reasons, there are limits to what we can learn from this type of research (cross-sectional ‘levels’ studies). Careful attention to methodological issues in this type of research design can reduce, but likely will not eliminate, these interpretational difficulties

In May 1991, one month after seizing Executive Life, California regulators seized First Capital Life (FCLIC). Both insurers were Drexel clients with large junk bond holdings, and both had experienced ‘bank runs’. FCLIC's run followed regulators' televised comments that its poor condition necessitated a substantial cash infusion. Yet FCLIC's statutory capital — with junk bonds, real estate, and mortgages marked to market — was far from lowest among major insurers with California policyholders. It becomes lowest if junk bonds alone are marked to market at year-end 1990 (ignoring larger market declines in real estate/mortgages and the junk bond market's 21% return in early 1991). Our findings suggest a regulatory bias against junk bonds in the political backlash against the 1980s