Richard H. Bernhard, Risk-Adjusted Values, Timing of Uncertainty Resolution, and the Measurement of Project Worth, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 83-99

Black and Scholes [1] derived the pricing equation for a European put when the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion. For this same case, Merton [5] derived the pricing equation for an American put with infinite time to maturity. Brennan and Schwartz [2], Rubinstein and Cox [7], and Parkinson [6] have developed numerical solutions for the price of an American put. Numerical solutions are expensive and do not provide much intuition. Naturally, an analytic solution would be much preferred; unfortunately, pricing the American put requires solving a formidable and presumably intractable boundary value problem.

Received monetary theory supports the existence of a strong relationship between monetary activity and stock prices. Following the work of Friedman and Schwartz [8], relating money supply to aggregate economic activity, some researchers have examined the more specific connection between changes in the rate of growth of money supply and associated movements in stock prices (see [6], [10], [11], [14], [17], [18], [19], [20], [22], and [28]). These studies use a variety of monetary aggregate measures to functionally relate the level of stock market indices to contemporaneous and lagged monetary growth rates. In general, the findings indicate a direct relationship between money supply and stock returns.

In recent years, there have been a number of studies investigating the yield spread phenomena between new and seasoned bonds ([1], [2], [3], [4], [8], [10], [13]). This literature focuses upon two aspects of the equilibrium pricing of new versus seasoned bonds: (l) analysis of the microeconomic determinants of new issue/seasoned issue yield spreads such as specific differences in coupon rates, call features, maturity features, and the like; and (2) analysis of macroeconomic determinants of yield spreads such as economic growth, interest rate cycles, changing marginal tax rates, and the like.

This study focuses on the risk-return characteristics of investments in the common stocks of U.S.–based multinational corporations (MNCs) and U.S. national corporations (NATLs). Findings follow from a comparison of the risk-adjusted performance of MNCs and NATLs using the framework of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Results of this comparison challenge assertions of earlier writers that marginal benefits or advantages accrue from investments in MNCs as compared to NATLs.

Bank regulators tend to disagree with the idea that markets can play a role in bank regulation. The markets for bank securities are viewed by regulators as inefficient and lacking the necessary information to demand sufficient risk premiums on bank obligations to affect bank management decisions. On the other hand, bankers who have an active market for their securities tend to place faith in market assessments to determine the cost of management policies; therefore, they tend to think that the market plays an important role in “regulating” bank management decisions. The regulators are perhaps correct about the markets for small and medium–sized banks, but for those banks which have an active market for their securities, do investors adjust rates of return for the presence of increased potential of bankruptcy? If so, when does the adjustment take place?

Eric H. Sorensen, An Analysis of the Relationship Between Underwriter Spread and the Pricing of Municipal Bonds, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 435-447

Richard H. Bernhard, A Simplification and an Extension of the Bernhard-deFARO Sufficient Condition for a Unique Non-Negative Internal Rate of Return, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 1980), pp. 201-209

I'd like to begin by thanking the Western Finance Association for the lunch I just consumed …It is only fair that I inform you at the outset that the views you are about to hear can only be described as biased. They are biased because I'll be limiting my remarks to those parts of finance that I think I know something about; secondly, my comments will contain a disproportionate reflection of my own work. The more generous among you might argue that this puts me in good company. A better explanation would recognize that I am really in a monopoly position for the next half hour or so: there are no contemporaneous sessions within commuting distance, your lunch was paid in advance and is not refundable, and for some of you at least there is a certain cost associated with getting up and leaving in full view of the organizers.

The problem of the portfolio demand for money was first rigorously studied by Tobin [22]. It has been analyzed since then, by Hicks [8] and Arrow [1], among many others. Many interesting results and implications regarding liquidity preference and risk-taking are derived in these studies. However, the effect of purchasing power risk on liquidity preference has been overlooked in these studies.