We build a dynamic agency model in which the agent controls both current earnings via short-term investment and firm growth via long-term investment. Under the optimal contract, agency conflicts can induce short- and long-term investment levels beyond first best, leading to short- or long-termism in corporate policies. The paper analytically shows how firm characteristics shape the optimal contract and the horizon of corporate policies, thereby generating a number of novel empirical predictions on the optimality of short- versus long-termism. It also demonstrates that combining short- and long-term agency conflicts naturally leads to asymmetric pay-for-performance in managerial contracts.

How much of a loan should a lender retain, and how do loan sales affect loan performance? We address these questions in a model in which a lender originates loans that it can sell to investors. The lender reduces default risk through screening at origination and monitoring after origination, but is subject to moral hazard. The optimal lender-investor contract can be implemented by requiring the lender to initially retain a share of the loan that it gradually sells to investors, rationalizing loan sales after origination. The model generates novel predictions linking loan and lender characteristics to initial retention, sales dynamics, and loan performance.

We develop a dynamic model of investment, financing, and cash management decisions in which investment is lumpy and firms face capital supply uncertainty. We characterize optimal policies explicitly, demonstrate that smooth-pasting conditions may not guarantee optimality, and show that firms may not follow standard single barrier policies. In the model, firms with high investment costs differ in their behaviors from firms with low investment costs, financing policy does not follow a strict pecking order, and the optimal payout policy may feature several regions with both incremental and lumpy dividend payments.

We model the financing, cash holdings, and hedging policies of a firm facing financing frictions and subject to permanent and transitory cash flow shocks. The permanent and transitory shocks generate distinct, sometimes opposite, effects on corporate policies. We use the model to develop a rich set of empirical predictions. In our model, correlated permanent and transitory shocks imply less risk, lower cash savings, and a drop in the value of credit lines. The composition of cash-flow shocks affects the cash-flow sensitivity of cash, which can be positive or negative. Optimal hedging of permanent and transitory shocks may involve opposite positions. Received September 16, 2015; editorial decision July 3, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

We argue that the prospect of an imperfect enforcement of debt contracts in default reduces shareholder–debtholder conflicts and induces leveraged firms to invest more and take on less risk as they approach financial distress. To test these predictions, we use a large panel of firms in 41 countries with heterogeneous debt enforcement characteristics. Consistent with our model, we find that the relation between debt enforcement and firms’ investment and risk depends on the firm-specific probability of default. A differences-in-differences analysis of firms’ investment and risk taking in response to bankruptcy reforms that make debt more renegotiable confirms the cross-country evidence.

Theory has recently shown that corporate policies should depend on firms’ exposure to short- and long-lived cash flow shocks and the correlation between these shocks. We provide granular estimates of these parameters for Compustat firms using a new filter that uses only cash flow data and the theoretical restrictions of a canonical cash flow model. As predicted by theory, we find that the estimated parameters are strongly related to corporate liquidity and financing choices, that firms with a higher estimated correlation between shocks implement riskier policies, and that the sign of this correlation determines the cash flow sensitivity of cash.