We demonstrate that analysts revise their forecasts of net operating income downward following the announcement of an equity-for-debt swap. Their revisions are positively correlated with the size of the stock-price reaction to the swap announcement. This evidence supports the hypothesis that announcements of equity-for-debt swaps convey information about the expected level of cash flows of the firm. We also provide evidence that this information is about transitory changes in the expected cash flows.

The issue of dynamic efficiency is central to analyses of capital accumulation and economic growth. Yet the question of what characteristics should be examined to determine whether actual economies are dynamically efficient is unresolved. This paper develops a criterion for determining whether an economy is dynamically efficient. The criterion, which holds for economies in which technological progress and population growth are stochastic, involves a comparison of the cash flows generated by capital with the level of investment. Its application to the United States economy and the economies of other major OECD nations suggests that they are dynamically efficient.

In recent months, the governors of several states have suffered major political embarrassments because actual revenues fell, substantially short of the predictions in their respective budgets. Such episodes focus attention on the question of whether states do a good " job of forecasting revenues. In modern economics, forecasts are evaluated on the basis of whether or not they are rational " do the forecasts optimal] y incorporate all information that is available at the tune they are made? This paper dr:vel ops a method for testing the rat i.onal t.y of state revenue forecasts, and applies it. to the aria lysi s of data from New Jersey, Massachusetts, arid Maryland. (ne of our main findtri'i; u,; that in all three states, the I orerats of own revenues are yystematically biased dowriward

We examine a variety of models in which the variance of a portfolio's excess return depends on a state variable generated by a first-order Markov process. A model in which the state is known to economic agents is estimated. It suggests that the mean excess return moves inversely with the level of risk. We then estimate a model in which agents are uncertain of the state. The estimates indicate that agents are consistently surprised by high-variance periods, so there is a negative correlation between movements in volatility and in excess returns.

Considerable evidence exists that governmental accounting numbers are related empirically to bond risk and return measures. However, prior research does not preclude the possibility that accounting numbers merely reflect unobserved factors such as economic and political attributes impounded in bond measures. This study considers whether governmental annual financial reports convey new information directly to the bond market. Changes in bond prices during the period around the release date of governmental annual reports were examined to assess market responses to the reports. No significant evidence was obtained to suggest that municipal bond investors use the information in the annual report at the time of its release to adjust bond prices. In contrast, new bond issues and bond rating announcements were associated with significant market reactions. Thus, these results indicate that, while issuer-specific accounting information may be used by bond investors in conjunction with decisions involving new issues and rating evaluations, investors do not appear to impound the information directly into secondary market prices at the time the information is released.

This paper finds that, for the 1935–1986 period, the market's risk‐return relation does not have a January seasonal. The findings differ from those of other studies due to the use of value‐weighted, rather than equally weighted, portfolios. Inferences are sensitive to the weighting procedure because of the small‐firm return patterns in January. In particular, even in those Januaries for which the market return is negative, small‐firm returns are positive, and they are more positive the higher is beta. This is consistent with the portfolio rebalancing explanation of the turn‐of‐the‐year effect.