Past studies indicate that stock prices are affected by announcements of unexpected dividend changes, i.e., unexpectedly large dividends are associated with positive stock price response. Two explanations of this empirical regularity, ‘the information content hypothesis’ and the ‘wealth redistribution hypothesis’, imply different bond price behavior around dividend announcements. The information content hypothesis predicts a positive bond price response to unexpectedly large dividends, while the wealth redistribution hypothesis predicts the opposite. This paper distinguishes between the relative importance of the two hypotheses by empirically investigating bond price behavior around dividend announcements. The evidence presented is consistent with the information content hypothesis. However, the gains associated with positive information are captured by the stockholders, while the losses are shared with the bondholders.

We develop a measure (based on the relative slopes of the demand and supply schedules) quantifying the asymmetric presence of liquidity traders in the market: a steeper slope of the demand (supply) schedule indicates a concentration of liquidity traders on the demand (supply) side. Using the opening session of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, we demonstrate the predictive power of our measure. Consistent with theory, we find that the concentration of liquidity traders on the demand (supply) side is negatively (positively) correlated with future returns. We find that liquidity traders are likely to arrive at the market together (commonality).

In their seminal paper, Modigliani and Miller [11], [12] demonstrate that if capital markets are perfect and investment policy is held constant, the market value of the firm is independent of its financial decisions. Furthermore, if capital markets are perfect, stockholders have incentive to choose the investment policy which maximizes the market value of the firm (see [6]). Motivated by this assumption, the firm has been viewed as a “black box;” namely, as one homogeneous unit whose clear objective is to maximize its market value. However, in a growing body of recent literature (see [1], [2], [7], [9], [13], and [14]), researchers recognize that the firm in an “imperfect” capital market is a collection of groups whose interests can, and do, conflict. Jensen and Meckling [9] study the roles of three important groups—the owner-manager, the stockholders, and the bondholders—focusing on the potential costs resulting from divergence of interests among them. They provide a theory of optimal capital structure in terms of reducing the costs of these conflicts.

The Myers and Majluf (1984) model predicts a nonpositive price reaction to an announcement of a new issue of equity. This paper shows that the Myers and Majluf result is a direct outcome of their assumption that all potential projects facing the firm have a nonnegative net present value. Refining the Myers and Majluf model, by allowing for the realistic possibility of potential projects having negative net present values, leads to different predictions. The refined model predicts positive as well as negative stock price responses, consistent with recent empirical evidence concerning the stock price effects of new stock issues.

ABSTRACT Stock prices on the organized exchanges are restricted to be divisible by ⅛. Therefore, the “true” price usually differs from the observed price. This paper examines the biases resulting from the discreteness of observed stock prices. It is shown that the natural estimators of the variance and all of the higher order moments of the rate of returns are biased. An approximate set of correction factors is derived and a procedure is outlined to show how the correction can be made. The natural estimators of the “beta” and of the variance of the market portfolio, on the other hand, are “nearly” unbiased.

[Exchange-mandated discrete pricing restrictions create a wedge between the underlying equilibrium price and the observed price. This wedge permits a competitive market maker to realize economic profits that could help recoup fixed costs. The optimal tick size that maximizes the expected profits of the market maker can be equal to $1/8 for reasonable parameter values. The optimal tick size is decreasing in the degree of adverse selection. Discreteness per se can cause time-varying bid-ask spreads, asymmetric commissions, and market breakdowns. Discreteness, which imposes additional transaction costs, reduces the value of private information. Liquidity traders can benefit under certain conditions.]