Knowledge that Transforms

This paper examines why firms choose to spend resources on acquiring ownership rights in other firms. Based on a unique data base of every individual intercorporate shareholding on the Oslo Stock Exchange during the period 1980–1994, we find that such investments serve at least three functions. First, they play a role incorporate governance, as managers in firms with low insider holdings, diffuse ownership structure and high free cash flow tend to mutually acquire equity stakes in each other, possibly in a collective attempt to protect their human capital in the market for corporate control. Second, interfirm equity holdings serve as financial slack for growing firms, reducing potential adverse selection costs by providing an internal funding source for new investments in long-term assets. Finally, our findings also suggest that intercorporate shareholdings are an integrated part of the investor’s cash flow management system by being a liquidity buffer when cash inflows and cash outflows are non-synchronous.

As argued by Jensen (1993), the primary tasks of a firm’s board of directors are to advise, hire, fire and determine the level and form of managerial compensation. Managerial pay can be structured as part cash and in part be tied to a performance index, such as corporate earnings or the firm’s stock price. The latter effectively aligns the interest of managers with those of stockholders, which in turn reduces agency problems related to free cash flow, managerial time horizons and effort levels. At the same time, stock-based compensation increases managerial exposure to non-diversifiable risk, which may cause risk-averse managers to underinvest in risky projects. The trade-off between the benefits of managerial incentive alignment and the cost of underinvestment is largely an empirical issue, and the widespread observation that managerial compensation is primarily paid in cash 1 suggests that managerial risk aversion weighs heavily or that boards generally resort to substitute monitoring mechanisms. The paper by Angbazo and Narayanan (1997) is part of a rapidly growing empirical literature attempting to identify important cross-sectional determinants

In this paper we present and estimate a model of short-term interest rate volatility that encompasses both the level effect of Chan, Karolyi, Longstaff and Sanders (1992) and the conditional heteroskedasticity effect of the GARCH class of models. This flexible specification allows different effects to dominate as the level of the interest rate varies. We also investigate implications for the pricing of bond options. Our findings indicate that the inclusion of a volatility effect reduces the estimate of the level effect, and has option implications that differ significantly from the Chan, Karolyi, Longstaff and Sanders (1992) model.

In this paper, the author constructs an equilibrium for markets with frictions, which is competitive in the sense that all agents are price takers and maximize utility subject to a set of market parameters. He shows that the equilibrium can be achieved if employers with vacancies can advertise publicly the wages they pay.

In the context of entry‐level labor markets, we consider the potential transactions that have to be evaluated before equilibrium transactions can be identified. These potential transactions involve offers that are rejected. After an initial phase in which many offers can be proffered in parallel, subsequent potential transactions must be processed serially, since a new offer cannot be made until an outstanding offer is rejected. In many, perhaps most, decentralized labor markets, this means that transactions have to be finalized before there is time for the market to clear, that is, before all the potential transactions that would need to be evaluated in order to reach a stable outcome can in fact be evaluated. This has implications for the strategic behavior of firms and workers. In particular, in deciding to whom to offer a position, a firm may have strong incentives to consider not only its preferences over workers but also the likelihood that its offer will be accepted, since if its offer is rejected it may find that many other potential employees have become unavailable in the interim. The analysis is carried out in connection with the decentralized

We develop a model of common agency with complete information and general preferences with nontransferable utility, and we prove that the principals' Nash equilibrium in truthful strategies implements an efficient action. We apply this theory to the construction of a positive model of public finance, where organized special interests can lobby the government for consumer and producer taxes or subsidies and targeted lump‐sum taxes or transfers. The lobbies use only the nondistorting transfers in their noncooperative equilibrium, but their intergroup competition for transfers turns into a prisoners' dilemma in which the government captures all the gain that is potentially available to the parties.

This paper examines the roles of markets and banks when both are active, characterizing the effects of financial market development on the structure and market share of banks. Banks lower the cost of giving investors rapid access to their capital and improve the liquidity of markets by diverting demand for liquidity from markets. Increased participation in markets causes the banking sector to shrink, primarily through reduced holdings of long‐term assets. In addition, increased participation leads to longer‐maturity real and financial assets and a smaller gap between the maturity of financial and real assets.

We examine the behavior of money, inflation, and output under fiat and commodity standards to better understand how changes in monetary policy affect economic activity. Using long‐term historical data for 15 countries, we find that, under fiat standards, the growth rates of various monetary aggregates are more highly correlated with inflation and with each other than under commodity standards. Money growth, inflation, and output growth are also higher. In contrast, we do not find that money growth is more highly correlated with output growth under one standard than under the other.

This paper addresses two long‐standing positive questions in public finance: (i) Why is the property tax, despite widespread popular complaints against its fairness, the almost exclusive tax instrument used by local governments, and (ii) why do we consistently observe higher levels of governments (states) undermining local property tax systems through income tax‐funded grants and state‐imposed caps on local property tax rates? A new intuitive argument to explain question is presented and tested in simulations using a computable general equilibrium model with parameters set to be consistent with New Jersey data. Both the intuitive argument and the simulation results indicate that setting local income tax rates to zero is a dominant strategy for community planners. When faced with popular sentiment against the property tax, community planners can collude and introduce local income taxes simultaneously to prevent adverse general equilibrium migration and price changes. Since zero income tax rates are dominant strategies, however, such an agreement is enforceable only if an outsider such as

We extend the standard procurement model to examine how an agent is optimally induced to acquire valuable planning information before he choose an unobservable level of cost‐reducing effort. Concerns about information acquisition cause important changes in standard incentive contracts. Reward structures with extreme financial payoffs arise, and super‐high‐powered contracts are coupled with contracts that entail pronounced cost sharing. However, if the principal can assign the planning and production tasks to two different agents, then all contracting distortions disappear and, except for forgone economies of scope, the principal achieves her most preferred outcome.