The types of investments a firm undertakes will depend in part on what it expects the outcome of those investments to reveal about its skills, capabilities, and assets (i.e., its resources). We predict that a firm will specialize when young, then experiment in a new line of business for some time, and then either expand into a large, multisegment business or focus and scale up its specialized business. We derive several empirical implications for firm valuations and the reaction of stock prices to news about firm prospects. We also offer a novel explanation for the well-documented “diversification” discount.

This article examines the auction of a portfolio of collateralized mortgage obligations to major broker dealers and institutional investors. The unique data set allows the authors to analyze a number of important empirical questions related to the valuation of collateralized mortgage obligations by the bidders and the elasticity of demand for the securities. The results reveal that the valuations differ substantially, implying a significant elasticity of demand.

This article examines the auction of a portfolio of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) to major broker dealers and institutional investors. The unique data set allows us to analyze a number of important empirical questions related to the valuation of CMOs by the bidders and the elasticity of demand for the securities. The results reveal that the valuations differ substantially implying a significant elasticity of demand.

We consider optimal capital allocation and managerial compensation mechanisms for decentralized firms when division managers have an incentive to misrepresent project quality and to minimize privately costly but value-enhancing effort. We show that in the optimal mechanism firms always underinvest in capital relative to a naive application of the net present value (NPV) rule. We make a number of novel cross-sectional predictions about the severity of the underinvestment problem and the composition of managerial compensation contracts. We also find that firms will optimally give greater performance-based pay (at the expense of fixed wages) to managers of higher quality projects to mitigate the incentive for managers to overstate project quality. Managers may thus receive greater performance-based pay because they manage higher quality projects, not that greater performance-based pay causes firm value to increase.

[We examine the problem of motivating privately informed managers to engage in entrepreneurial activity to improve the quality of the firm's investment opportunities. The firm's investment and compensation policy must balance the manager's incentives to provide entrepreneurial effort and to report private information truthfully. The optimal policy is to underinvest (compared to first-best) and provide weak incentive pay in low-quality projects and overinvest (compared to first-best) and provide strong incentive pay in highquality projects.]

We examine the problem of motivating privately informed managers to engage in entrepreneurial activity to improve the quality of the firm's investment opportunities. The firm's investment and compensation policy must balance the manager's incentives to provide entrepreneurial effort and to report private information truthfully. The optimal policy is to underinvest (compared to first-best) and provide weak incentive pay in low-quality projects and overinvest (compared to first-best) and provide strong incentive pay in high-quality projects.

We examine optimal capital allocation and managerial compensation in a firm with two investment projects (divisions) each run by a risk-neutral manager who can provide (i) (unverifiable) information about project quality and (ii) (unverifiable) access to value-enhancing, but privately costly resources. The optimal managerial compensation contract offers greater performance pay and a lower salary when managers report that their project is higher quality. The firm generally underinvests in capital and managers underutilize resources (relative to first-best). We also derive cross-sectional predictions about the sensitivity of investment in one division to the quality of investment opportunities in the other division, and the relative importance of division-level and firm-level performance-based pay in managerial compensation contracts.

We examine optimal capital allocation and managerial compensation in a firm with two investment projects (divisions) each run by a risk-neutral manager who can provide (i) (unverifiable) information about project quality and (ii) (unverifiable) access to value-enhancing, but privately costly resources. The optimal managerial compensation contract offers greater performance pay and a lower salary when managers report that their project is higher quality. The firm generally underinvests in capital and managers underutilize resources (relative to first-best). We also derive cross-sectional predictions about the sensitivity of investment in one division to the quality of investment opportunities in the other division, and the relative importance of division-level and firm-level performance-based pay in managerial compensation contracts.