The importance of cash-flow uncertainty in payout policy has received little attention in empirical studies, while survey studies such as [Lintner, J., 1956. Distribution of incomes of operations among dividends, retained earnings, and taxes. American Economic Review 46, 97–113.] and [Brav, A., Graham, J., Harvey C., Michaely, R., 2005. Payout policy in the 21st century. Journal of Financial Economics 77, 483–527.] indicate its importance. With worldwide firm-level data, we present evidence that cash-flow uncertainty is an important cross-sectional determinant of corporate payout policy. Our results show that across countries, cash-flow uncertainty, as proxied by stock return volatility, has a negative impact on the amount of dividends as well as the probability of paying dividends. The impact of cash-flow uncertainty on dividends is generally stronger than the impact of other potential determinants of payout policy—such as the earned/contributed capital mix, agency conflicts, and investment opportunities. We also find that the effect of cash-flow uncertainty on dividends is distinct from the effect of a firm's financial life-cycle stage.

[We examine short selling in US stocks based on new SEC-mandated data for 2005. There is a tremendous amount of short selling in our sample: short sales represent 24% of NYSE and 31% of Nasdaq share volume. Short sellers increase their trading following positive returns and they correctly predict future negative abnormal returns. These patterns are robust to controlling for voluntary liquidity provision and for opportunistic risk-bearing by short sellers. The results are consistent with short sellers trading on short-term overreaction of stock prices. A trading strategy based on daily short-selling activity generates significant positive returns during the sample period.]

This paper considers the impact of the takeover likelihood on firm valuation. If firms are more likely to acquire when there is more free cash or lower required rates of return, the targets become more sensitive to shocks to cash flows or the price of risk. Ceteris paribus, firms exposed to takeovers have different rates of return than protected firms. Using takeover likelihood estimates, we create a “takeover factor, ” buying (selling) firms with a high (low) takeover likelihood, which generates “abnormal ” returns. Several tests confirm that the takeover factor helps explaining cross-sectional differences in equity returns and is related to takeover activity. This paper considers the impact of the takeover channel on valuation. While it is well known that target shareholders receive a large premium on a takeover, how expectations about takeover premiums affect firm valuation has not been investigated. One possible reason for this lack of interest may be the assumption that differences in takeover exposure are purely idiosyncratic, and hence do not affect a firm’s cost of capital. In that case, the issue of incorporating the takeover channel into valuation is solved by simply adding the expected

[This paper considers the impact of the takeover likelihood on firm valuation. If firms are more likely to acquire when there is more free cash or lower required rates of return, the targets become more sensitive to shocks to cash flows or the price of risk. Ceteris paribus, firms exposed to takeovers have different rates of return than protected firms. Using takeover likelihood estimates, we create a "takeover factor," buying (selling) firms with a high (low) takeover likelihood, which generates "abnormal" returns. Several tests confirm that the takeover factor helps explaining cross-sectional differences in equity returns and is related to takeover activity.]

We study the microstructure of the Pink Sheets and assess the ability of existing theory to capture salient features of this relatively unstructured and unregulated market. Clustering patterns in quotes, quoted spreads, and trade prices indicate that market participants have selected price-dependent tick sizes for different stocks. Clustering intensity varies across stocks as a function of proxies for information availability. Similarly, the bid-ask spread varies as a function of volatility and liquidity. These results suggest (1) microstructure research has established robust predictions of market attributes and (2) unstructured markets are able to develop at least some effective behavioral norms endogenously.

We present unique empirical tests for auction overbidding using data from Sweden's auction bankruptcy system. The main creditor (a bank) can neither bid in the auction nor refuse to sell in order to support a minimum price. However, we argue that the bank may increase its expected revenue by financing a bidder in return for a joint bid strategy, and we show that the optimal coalition bid exceeds the bidder's private valuation (overbidding) by an amount that is increasing in the bank's ex ante debt impairment. We find that bank–bidder financing arrangements are common, and our cross-sectional regressions show that winning bids are increasing in the bank-debt impairment as predicted. While, in theory, overbidding may result in the coalition winning against a more efficient rival bidder, our evidence on post-bankruptcy operating performance fails to support such allocative inefficiency effects. We also find that restructurings by bank-financed bidders are relatively risky as they have greater bankruptcy refiling rates, irrespective of the coalition's overbidding incentive.

We develop a tractable and flexible stochastic volatility multifactor model of the term structure of interest rates. It features unspanned stochastic volatility factors, correlation between innovations to forward rates and their volatilities, quasi-analytical prices of zero-coupon bond options, and dynamics of the forward rate curve, under both the actual and risk-neutral measures, in terms of a finite-dimensional affine state vector. The model has a very good fit to an extensive panel dataset of interest rates, swaptions, and caps. In particular, the model matches the implied cap skews and the dynamics of implied volatilities.

[We develop a two-sided asymmetric information model of asset sales that incorporates the key differences from mergers and allows the information held by each party to be impounded in the transaction. The buyer's information is conveyed through a first-stage competitive auction. A seller with unfavorable information about the asset accepts the cash offer of the highest bidder. A seller with favorable information proposes a take-it-or-leave-it counteroffer that entails buyer equity. Thus, the cash-equity decision reflects the seller's but not the buyer's information in contrast to the theoretical and empirical findings for mergers. The central prediction of our model is that there are large gains in wealth for both buyers and sellers in equity-based asset sales, whereas cash sales generate significantly smaller gains that typically accrue only to sellers. Our empirical results are consistent with the predictions of our theoretical model.]