Announcements of debt-reducing exchange offers are associated with a negative average stock price reaction. We address two questions: Why do firms undertake debt-reducing exchange offers? And, what is the information conveyed by such offers? The answers are interrelated: Debt-reducing exchange offers are undertaken by financially weak firms in an effort to stave off further financial distress and, thereby, preserve value for shareholders. A successfully completed exchange offer significantly reduces the likelihood that a firm will enter Chapter 11. Announcements of debt-reducing exchange offers apparently contain two pieces of information: (1) the firm is financially weaker than would have been apparent from other publicly available information, and (2) management is attempting to preserve value for shareholders.

The AICPA Special Committee on Financial Reporting has urged disclosure of relevant forward‐looking information on risks and opportunities to supplement conventional financial statements. We conduct a laboratory market experiment to assess the effects of such disclosures on capital allocation decisions. We develop two sets of competing hypotheses regarding how capital markets react to supplemental disclosures. One set is based on the assumption of semi‐strong market efficiency, while the other posits that the bounded rationality of individual traders leads to inefficient market prices. We find that explicit disclosure of management’s best estimate of an uncertain quantity improves market efficiency, even though this disclosure is redundant with information in financial statements. Second, we find disclosure of an upper bound of management’s estimate has the potential to bias security prices upward, while informationally equivalent disclosure of both upper and lower bounds removes this bias. These results suggest that experimental market reactions to these supplemental disclosures are inconsistent with market efficiency. Supplemental analyses of individuals’ price predictions and trading behavior support our conclusion that inefficiencies are at least partially attributable to individual information processing biases.

We study the effects of structural changes in banking markets on the supply of credit to small businesses. Specifically, we examine whether bank mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and entry have “external” effects on small business loans by other banks in the same local markets. The results suggest modest positive external effects from these dynamic changes in competition, except that large banks may reduce small business lending in reaction to entry. We confirm bank size and age as important determinants of this lending, and show that the measured age effect does not appear to be driven by local market M&A activity.

We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.

We analyze a sample of 119 master limited partnership agreements to examine the linkages between the contractual design and performance of organizations. Consistent with either efficient self-selection or focus arguments, partnerships that contractually limit their scope of operations tend to have superior industry-adjusted operating performance. We also find that contracting can substitute for equity ownership as a control mechanism. Partnerships with agreements unfavorable to investors tend to have higher proportions of insider equity ownership, compared to those with agreements more protective of investors.

This paper examines whether institutional investors exhibit preferences for near‐term earnings over long‐run value and whether such preferences have implications for firms' stock prices. First, I find that the level of ownership by institutions with short investment horizons (e.g., “transient” institutions) and by institutions held to stringent fiduciary standards (e.g., banks) is positively (negatively) associated with the amount of firm value in expected nearterm (long‐term) earnings. This evidence raises the question of whether such institutions myopically price firms, overweighting short‐term earnings potential and underweighting long‐term earnings potential. Evidence of such myopic pricing would establish a link through which institutional investors could pressure managers into a short‐term focus. The results provide no evidence that high levels of ownership by banks translate into myopic mispricing. However, high levels of transient ownership are associated with an over‐ (under‐) weighting of near‐term (long‐term) expected earnings, and a trading strategy based on this finding generates significant abnormal returns. This finding supports the concerns that many corporate managers have about the adverse effects of an ownership base dominated by short‐term‐focused institutional investors.

We examine whether tax incentives influence where U.S. multinationals locate their interest deductions worldwide. Our sample includes international bond offerings by U.S. multinationals during 1987–1997 denominated in the currencies of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, or the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that U.S. multinationals’ debt location decisions take into account the effect of jurisdiction‐specific tax‐loss carryforwards and binding foreign tax credit limitations on the value of debt tax shields. Our results are also consistent with U.S. multinationals locating interest deductions in different tax jurisdictions as a mechanism to achieve tax‐motivated income shifting.

Reviewing The Spatial Economy by Fujita, Krugman, and Venables, this paper argues that the key contribution of the new economic geography is a framework in which standard building blocks of mainstream economics (especially rational decision making and simple general equilibrium models) are used to model the trade-off between dispersal and agglomeration. The approach thus gives a choice-theoretic basis for a “propensity to agglomerate.”