We examine investors’ reactions to announcements of large capital infusions by U.S. financial institutions (FIs) from 2000 to 2009. These infusions include private market infusions (seasoned equity offerings (SEOs)) as well as injections of government capital under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The sample period covers both business cycle expansions and contractions, and the recent financial crisis. We present evidence on the factors affecting FIs’ decisions to raise capital, the determinants of investor reactions, and post-infusion risk-taking of the recipients, as well as a sample of matching FIs. Investors reacted negatively to the news of private market SEOs by FIs, both in the immediate term (e.g., the two days surrounding the announcement) and over the subsequent year, but positively to TARP injections. Reactions differed depending on the characteristics of the FIs, and the stage of the business cycle. Smaller, more financially constrained non-bank institutions were more likely to have raised capital through private market offerings during the period prior to TARP, and firms receiving a TARP injection tended to be riskier and more levered. In the case of TARP recipients, they appeared to finance an increase in credit risk with more stable financing sources such as core deposits, which lowered their liquidity risk. However, we find no evidence that banks’ capital adequacy increased after the capital injections.

In this study, the association between performance of BHCs and institutional ownership stability is investigated and contrasted to those found for the less regulated utility and industrial firms in order to determine whether regulation displaces owner monitoring. We employ a simultaneous equations model treating firm performance and institutional ownership stability as endogenous variables. Several results are obtained. First, BHC performance is positively associated with institutional ownership stability. Second, this association is weaker for BHCs than for comparable utility and industrial firms, possibly because of the substitution of regulation for owner monitoring in banking. Third, this association is stronger in the recent deregulated years and for BHCs with lower likelihood of regulatory intervention.

This article investigates whether volatility, skewness, and kurtosis risks are priced in the European stock market and assess the signs and the magnitudes of the corresponding risk premia. To this end, we adopt two approaches: a model-free approach based on swap contracts, and a model-based approach built on portfolio-sorting techniques. A number of results are obtained. First, stocks with high exposure to innovations in implied market volatility (skewness) exhibit low (high) returns on average. Second, the estimated premium for bearing market volatility (skewness) risk is negative (positive), robust to the two approaches employed, and statistically and economically significant. Third, in contrast with studies on the US stock market, we identify the existence of a size premium in the European stock market: small capitalization stocks earn higher returns than high capitalization stocks.

We examine the risk and return linkages across US commercial banks, securities firms, and life insurance companies during the 1991–2001 period. After controlling for changes in the broader stock market, interest rates, and foreign currency values, we find that return and risk interdependencies across these financial firms are significant and size-varying; larger institutions display stronger volatility transmission linkages, while smaller ones exhibit more prominent return-related linkages. The tighter link in risk among large financial institutions (FIs) suggests stronger convergence, employment of common models of risk measurement and risk management, and more intense inter-industry competition, particularly between large banks and large securities firms, compared to smaller institutions. Lack of risk spillover among smaller FIs confirms the intuition that they typically assume more localized and idiosyncratic risk. The co-movement of stock returns among smaller FIs has been helped by the effects of locally based factors, such as economic conditions and state regulations, on all such institutions, and a less diversified product set. Differences in spillover patterns between large and smaller institutions have implications on investment choices and mergers and acquisitions in the industry. Introduction of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) has had dissimilar effects on the riskiness of large versus smaller life insurance and securities firms, and an insignificant effect on commercial banks.

In this study, we investigate the relationship between various dimensions of diversification and the cost of debt for publicly traded bank holding companies (BHCs). We find that both domestic geographic diversification of deposits and diversification of assets lead to a lower bond yield-spread. Diversification of non-traditional banking activities leads to a lower cost of debt only when yield-spread and diversification are estimated simultaneously. In addition, we find that medium-sized BHCs experience a greater reduction in bond yield-spread than small-sized and large-sized BHCs. This is consistent with the too-big-to-fail (TBTF) effects in the banking industry. Furthermore, we document that the association between diversification and yield-spread is bidirectional with higher yield-spreads being associated with greater asset and activity diversification and lower geographic deposit dispersion. The effect of diversification on bond yield-spread is robust after accounting for cross-sectional and serial correlation, and the endogeneity of diversification.