This study provides, as a result of comprehensive search, a better description of the intertemporal behaviors of corporate debt policy, comparable to those that exist for dividend policy. Although leverage policy may vary a great deal from firm to firm, we found that: (1) The rather simple partial adjustment model with constant payout ratio to have the best predictive performance and other superior models include the first-order markov process and the historical average leverage ratio; (2) in general, firms seem to operate with a concept of “target leverage ratio, ” e.g., target ratio computed from the partial adjustment models, or from historical or industry averages; (3) there is some weak evidence of the presence of unused debt capacity for the total sample; (4) the average speed of adjustment to close the gap between the desired and actual leverage ratio is a respectable 67 percent in the first year (due to the lumpiness of debt issue, individual firms tend to be either under or overadjusted); (5) there are some indications that firms also adjust debt behavior to anticipated future increases or decreases in assets.There are several areas for future research, for instance, the best debt model could serve as the first stage of a possible two-stage equation in the empirical verification of the MSM's assumption of the independence of the investment decision to the financing decision (e.g., [7]), on a further exploration of how firms' expectations affect debt behavior. Finally, the existence of a rational target leverage ratio should encourage research interest concerning the existence of an empirically testable optimal leverage ratio.

The purpose of this note is to present a simple computational algorithm to approximate the E, S portfolio selection model. The essential feature of the model is the utilization of the familiar linear programming framework by representing risks as a series of linear constraints. Suppose we have m states and n securities, and we assume the investor is able to specify the contingent returns for all securities in each state. Following [7], we define risk as being the downside deviation from the investor's target rate of return.

Prior to the recent experience with relatively flexible exchange rates, there was much concern that a high degree of exchange-rate flexibility might somehow overburden the institutions of the foreign-exchange market, particularly the forward market, with disruptive consequences for international commerce. While seldom clearly stated, the reasoning underlying this concern usually proceeded along the following lines. Substantial exchange-rate flexibility would lead business management to expect greater exchange-rate variations, with the result that businesses would seek to cover much more of their foreign-exchange exposure (i.e., would seek to “insure” against the greater exchange-rate risk) by purchasing or selling foreign currency forward. However, foreign-exchange traders either could not accommodate this greatly increased demand for their services, or could accommodate it only at substantially higher cost. Consequently, business firms would significantly reduce the volume of their international transactions.

Peter S. Chung, An Investigation of the Firm Effects Influence in the Analysis of Earnings to Price Ratios of Industrial Common Stocks, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 6 (Dec., 1974), pp. 1009-1029

The purpose of this study is to analyze the behavior of the cost of equity capital in the commercial banks by looking at whether there exists an optimal composition of the bank “fund structure” that would maximize bank earnings through the minimization of its cost of funds. The analysis should give an approximate cut-off point for testing such projects as “checking plus, ” checkless payment systems, etc.

Investment literature, particularly materials made available to investors by financial magazines, brokerage houses, and investment services, places a great deal of stress upon analysis of investment opportunities by industry groups. Examples are industry analyses, such as those of Forbes and Financial Analysts Journal, as well as the industry segregations of popular services such as Value Line, Standard & Poor's and Moody's.

This paper applies a single measure of investment performance to mutual fund portfolios for the 20-year period 1948–1967. It criticizes the efficacy of market indices, at least for the purpose of evaluating aggregate results of managed portfolios; it tests the predictive value of past results in forecasting future performance; and finally, it identifies two factors that are positively related to fund performance during the time period studied.

Guenther and Trombley (1994) and Jennings, Simko, and Thompson (1996) document a negative association between a firm's last‐in, first‐out (LIFO) reserve and the market value of its equity. In this paper, we test a deferred tax explanation of this negative association. Specifically, we argue that investors, conditional on adjusting inventory to as‐if first‐in, first‐out (FIFO), estimate a firm's future LIFO liquidation tax burden as its LIFO reserve multiplied by the appropriate corporate tax rate and include this tax‐adjusted LIFO reserve in the valuation of a LIFO firm's net assets. On the basis of this argument, the tax‐adjusted LIFO reserve is in effect an estimate of an off‐balance‐sheet deferred tax liability and, as a result, we predict a negative association between the tax‐adjusted LIFO reserve and market value of equity. We test our deferred tax explanation by estimating a valuation model in which a firm's market value of equity is expressed as a function of the firm's assets, liabilities, deferred tax liability, and tax‐adjusted LIFO reserve; the model is estimated separately in years preceding and following the reduction of tax rates mandated by the US Tax Reform Act of 1986. Test results provide strong support for the deferred tax explanation of the negative association between a firm's LIFO reserve and the market value of its equity.