This paper examines the degree to which cash flow availability influences firm investment in six OECD countries. In particular, we are interested in the extent to which the reliance on internal funds is affected by firm size, since there is general agreement that smaller firms have less access to external capital markets and, thus, should be more affected by the availability of internal funds. Earlier work has concluded that the documented positive relationship between cash flow and investment is evidence of the existence of financial constraints. We first examine all firms, regardless of size, in each country, and we find that the amount of corporate investment is affected by internal resources in all six countries; that is, internal financing affects firm investment. We then repeat the analysis segmenting the sample using three measures of firm size. Contrary to our a priori expectations, we find that the cash flow-investment sensitivity is generally highest in the large firm size group and smallest in the small firm size group. We deduce that the explanations for these findings are grounded in managerial agency considerations, and in the greater flexibility enjoyed by large firms in timing their investments. Thus, we conclude that the degree of sensitivity of a firm's investments to its cash flows cannot be interpreted as an accurate measure of its access to capital markets (as do Kaplan, S., Zingales, L., 1997. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 169–215), since small firms are known to have less access to external markets.

Calls of in-the-money convertible preferred stock typically induce dividend savings for the firm, since preferred dividends exceed common stock dividends. Prior research finds that these savings are negatively related to stock returns at call announcement and argues that the market expects managers to abuse the increased free cash flow. This paper finds that dividend savings are closely related to call size, suggesting other explanations. Larger calls experience a more negative announcement reaction. Consistent with temporary liquidity effects, there is a price reversal during the conversion period, which is greater for larger calls.

Previous research documents that Hong Kong stocks have a full ex-dividend price adjustment consistent with dividends and capital gains being tax free. We examine ex-dividend price behavior of Hong Kong ADRs to assess the impact of differing tax environments in US and Hong Kong. These ADRs typically go ex-dividend before their underlying stock. They experience significant abnormal returns of 1.16% on their ex-day; the average ex-day price drop is only 30% of the dividend. However, ADR prices drop when the underlying stock goes ex-dividend subsequently. The cumulative ADR price drop is equal to the dividend. Thus, the ADR ex-dividend adjustment resembles that of the underlying stock, consistent with home country tax laws governing ADR price behavior. Neither liquidity nor transaction costs can explain the anomalous delayed ex-dividend adjustment of ADRs.

Using an earnings-based structural model, calibrated with US data for the period 2001–2017, we examine how the structure of an interest expense cap for the deduction of interest expense changes the tax benefits of debt. We find that an EBIT (EBITDA) based cap reduces the marginal tax benefits of debt by 6 percentage points (4.6 p.p.) of unlevered firm value for a typical firm. This impact differs across industries due to variations in industry-specific labor and physical capital deployed, and the associated depreciation. An EBITDA-based structure for a cap reduces the differential tax impact of a cap across industries. Our results are widely applicable in determining the cost of debt in the presence of these cap structures, enshrined in the US and OECD countries.

Stock split ex-dates are associated with both an increased intensity of small investor buying and a positive abnormal return. The broker promotion hypothesis suggests that the increase in relative spread after a split induces brokers to promote splitting stocks to small investors. The trading inconvenience hypothesis ascribes the ex-split effects to inconveniences such as investors' aversion to dealing with due bills, which is unrelated to relative spreads. The reduction in the bid-ask spread due to decimalization allows us to disentangle these two hypotheses. During the 1/8th pricing period, we show that after the ex-date, the relative spread increases significantly. The average buy order size decreases and the frequency of small transactions increases after the split. After decimalization, these changes are smaller in magnitude. We observe significant positive abnormal returns around the ex-date during the 1/8th pricing period, but not in the decimal pricing period. These results support the broker promotion hypothesis.

There is little evidence in the literature on the relative importance of the underlying sources of merger gains. Prior literature suggests that synergies could arise due to taxes, market power, or efficiency improvements. Based on Value Line forecasts, we estimate the average synergy gains in a broad sample of 264 large mergers to be 10.03% of the combined equity value of the merging firms. The detailed data in Value Line projections allow for the decomposition of these gains into underlying operating and financial synergies. We estimate that tax savings contribute only 1.64% in additional value, while operating synergies account for the remaining 8.38%. Operating synergies are higher in focused mergers, while tax savings constitute a large fraction of the gains in diversifying mergers. The operating synergies are generated primarily by cutbacks in investment expenditures rather than by increased operating profits. Overall, the evidence suggests that mergers generate gains by improving resource allocation rather than by reducing tax payments or increasing the market power of the combined firm.