Numerical approximations are presented for the expected utility of wealth over a single time period for a small investor who proportions her or his available capital between a risk-free asset and a risky stock. The stock price is assumed to be a log-stable random variable. The utility functional is logarithmic or isoeleastic (yaq, q extless 0). Analytic results are presented for special choices of model parameters, and for large and small time periods.

Recent advances in the general equilibrium pricing of simple put and call options lay the foundation for the development of a general theory of the valuation of contingent claims assets. This paper provides a review of: (1) the development of the general equilibrium option pricing model by Black and Scholes, and the subsequent modifications of this model by Merton and others; (2) the empirical verification of these models; and (3) applications of these models to value other contingent claim assets such as the debt and equity of a levered firm and dual purpose mutual funds.

This paper offers a possible explanation for the conflicting results in the literature concerning the empirical relation between collateral and loan risk. We posit that differences in collateral characteristics, such as liquidity, may be associated with the empirical dominance of different risk-collateral relations implied by economic theory. Using credit registry data and a novel identification strategy to control for borrower and lender selection effects allows us to differentiate between the ex ante and ex post theories of collateral. We find that collateral overall is associated with lower risk premiums and higher default rates. The results indicate an important role for collateral in mitigating losses and reducing risk-taking incentives, consistent with ex post theories. Liquid collateral is associated with especially low risk premiums, and these loans perform better than those with illiquid collateral or no collateral. We also find that individual collateral types exhibit significant variation in terms of risk-collateral relations, with some consistent with ex ante theories and others with ex post theories. Our results suggest that the conflicting results in the literature may occur because different samples may be dominated by different types of collateral with different economic characteristics.

This study examines online multi-unit, discriminatory, ascending auctions of certificates of deposit. We find evidence suggesting that the most aggressive bids are likely to occur at the beginning and the end of the auctions. The opening of the auction serves an important role in price discovery. In addition, in multi-unit auctions last-minute bidding is a conditional strategy, and is used only when bidding is intense. Furthermore, we provide evidence suggesting that revenues are increasing in the depth of the market, in the concentration of early bids, and in bank participation relative to the size of the principal.

We evaluate whether, and under what circumstances, corporate tax aggressiveness influences audit pricing. Using a compound measure of two long-run effective tax rates, we find that tax-aggressive firms pay higher fees for external audit services after controlling for factors related to earnings management. The fee premium increases with management’s uncertainty about the sustainability of tax positions if audited by tax authorities (i.e., disclosed tax reserves). Further, the provision of auditor-provided tax services may create knowledge spillovers that alleviate the fee premium for tax aggressiveness, unless tax uncertainty is high. Finally, an accounting firm’s industry expertise in auditing is associated with higher audit fees independent of tax aggressiveness, whereas industry expertise in taxation leads to a fee premium only for tax-aggressive clients. Overall, the evidence implies firms’ aggressive tax behavior, tax services provider, and auditor expertise interact to influence the pricing of audit engagements.

This paper uses stock market data to investigate the popular claim that investors are misled by the “pro forma” earnings numbers conspicuously featured in the press releases of some U.S. firms. We first document the frequency and magnitude of pro forma earnings in press releases issued during June through August 2000, and describe the 433 firms that engaged in this financial disclosure strategy. Our test period predates public expressions of concern by trade associations and regulators that pro forma earnings may mislead investors and the subsequent issuance of guidelines and rules on the disclosure of pro forma earnings numbers. We use two complementary approaches to determine whether the share prices that investors assign to pro forma firms are systematically higher than the prices assigned to other firms. Our market‐multiples tests for differences in price levels find some evidence suggesting that pro forma firms may be priced higher than firms that do not use the disclosure strategy. This apparent overpricing is not, however, related to the pro forma earnings numbers themselves. Our narrow‐window stock returns tests reveal no evidence of a stock return premium for pro forma firms at the quarterly earnings announcement date. Collectively, the results cast doubt on the notion that investors are, on average, misled by pro forma earnings disclosures despite the widespread concern expressed in the financial press and by regulators.

Résumé. Les vérificateurs, les responsables de la réglementation et les universitaires s'intéressent à la pratique du ≪ leurre‐prix ≫ et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. Cette question a même fait l'objet de plusieurs modèles analytiques. Ces théories n'ont cependant jamais été testées, principalement à cause de l'absence de données concrètes relatives à d'importantes variables contextuelles. Les auteurs de la présente étude élaborent un modèle à périodes multiples s'appliquant à la pratique du leurre‐prix et à l'objectivité du vérificateur et l'expérimentent dans des marchés de laboratoire en recourant à la méthodologie de l'économique expérimentale. Leur étude vient enrichir la documentation existante sous deux rapports. D'abord, il s'agit de l'une des premières études à produire une argumentation empirique et à expérimenter la théorie de la relation entre la pratique du leurre‐prix et l'objectivité. Ensuite, le modèle repose sur un raisonnement nouveau relatif à la pratique du leurre‐prix et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. La pratique du leurre‐prix et l'atteinte à l'objectivité, qui se manifestent indépendamment des coûts exogènes des opérations, sont le résultat de la prémisse d'une variation transversale dans les coûts et la qualité de la vérification et d'un avantage relatif à l'information qui échoit à un couple vérificateur attitré‐client en ce qui a trait à l'évolution de ces dimensions de la vérification. Les auteurs ont appliqué le modèle pendant un certain nombre de périodes à des marchés de laboratoire réunissant plusieurs acheteurs et plusieurs vendeurs. Ils ont observé seize de ces marchés dans le but de vérifier la valeur prédictive du modèle en ce qui a trait aux prix et à l'information communiquée. L'expérience est concluante quant à la pratique du leurre‐prix, mais elle n'est pas convaincante en ce qui a trait à la prévision exacte des prix. L'expérience confirme également la validité des prévisions relatives à l'information communiquée, les vendeurs ne s'éloignant de la vérité (et faisant une entorse à l'objectivité) que lorsque les profits supplémentaires qu'ils sont susceptibles d'en retirer sont supérieurs aux coûts supplémentaires que risque d'entraîner la communication d'information inexacte. L'on peut obtenir les données relatives aux marchés de laboratoire utilisées dans le présent document en en faisant la demande aux auteurs.

Auditors, regulators, and academics are interested in the pricing practice of “lowballing” and its relationship to auditor independence. Several analytical models have examined these issues. However, these theories have gone untested primarily due to a lack of field data concerning important environmental variables. In this study, a multiperiod model of lowballing and independence is developed and tested in laboratory markets via the experimental economics methodology. The study contributes to the literature in two respects. First, it represents one of the first studies providing empirical evidence and theory testing of the relationship between lowballing and independence. Second, the model presents a new rationale for low‐ball pricing and its relationship to auditor independence. Lowballing and impairment of independence, occurring without exogenous transaction costs, are caused by positing cross‐sectional variation in audit cost and quality and an informational advantage that accrues to an incumbent auditor‐client pair regarding future variation in these audit dimensions. The model is operationalized in a multiperiod laboratory market consisting of multiple sellers and buyers. Sixteen markets are conducted to test price and reporting predictions of the model. The markets strongly exhibit lowballing behavior, but the exact price predictions are generally not supported. The markets also support reporting predictions, with sellers deviating from truthful reporting (impairing their independence) only when additional future profits are greater than the additional cost of misreporting. Data availability. The laboratory market data used in this paper are available from the authors upon request.