Our paper explores whether a symmetric plain or an asymmetric down-beta is a better hedging measure (Roy 1952; Markowitz 1959). Unlike Ang, Chen, and Xing (2006) and Lettau, Maggiori, and Weber (2014), we find that the prevailing plain market beta is the better predictor, even for crashes. It also predicts the subsequent down-beta (i.e., beta measured only on days when the stock market had declined) better than down-beta itself. Stocks with higher down-betas ex ante also do not earn higher average rates of return ex post. Thus, down-betas are useful for neither hedging nor risk-pricing purposes.

[Numerous measures have been proposed to gauge the performance of active management. Unfortunately, these measures can be gamed. Our article shows that gaming can have a substantial impact on popular measures even in the presence of high transactions costs. Our article shows there are conditions under which a manipulation-proof measure exists and fully characterizes it. This measure looks like the average of a power utility function, calculated over the return history. The case for using our alternative ranking metric is particularly compelling for hedge funds whose use of derivatives is unconstrained and whose managers' compensation itself induces a nonlinear payoff.]

Announcements of successful leveraged buyouts (LBOs) during January 1985 to April 1989 caused a significantly negative return on outstanding publicly traded nonconvertible bonds. Yet the average risk-adjusted debt holder losses are less than 7 percent of the average risk-adjusted equity holder gains. Bond losses are related to the pre-LBO rating, but only weakly to equity holder gains. We demonstrate that trader-quoted data from a major investment bank offers conclusions about the effects of LBOs on debt holders different from those drawn from commonly used matrix and exchange-based data (such as Standard & Poor’s Bond Guide data). This has important implications for event studies involving debt instruments.

Issuers of initial public offerings (IPOs) can report earnings in excess of cash flows by taking positive accruals. This paper provides evidence that issuers with unusually high accruals in the IPO year experience poor stock return performance in the three years thereafter. IPO issuers in the most “aggressive” quartile of earnings managers have a three-year aftermarket stock return of approximately 20 percent less than IPO issuers in the most “conservative” quartile. They also issue about 20 percent fewer seasoned equity offerings. These differences are statistically and economically significant in a variety of specifications.

We show that discrimination can occur even when it is common knowledge that underlying group characteristics do not differ and when employers do not prefer same-group candidates. When employers can judge job applicants' unknown qualities better when candidates belong to the same group and hire the best prospect from a large pool of applicants, the top applicant is likely to have the same background as the employer. The model has policy, empirical, and experimental implications. For example, the model predicts that "screening discrimination" is more likely to occur and persist in sectors in which underlying quality is important but difficult to observe, there are numerous applicants, interviewing (screening) is relatively cheap, and applicants have to acquire job-specific skills.

Several recent papers present signaling models in which firms underprice their initial public offerings of equity (IPOs) so that they can subsequently issue seasoned equity at more favorable prices. We test the implications of these models. We find a positive relation between IPO underpricing and the probability and size of subsequent seasoned offerings. Although these results are consistent with the implications of the signaling hypotheses, the economic significance appears weak. We conduct additional tests to evaluate other explanations for these findings and find the alternatives more compelling.

This paper explores the determinants of corporate R&D for U.S., Canadian, British, European, and Japanese firms. We find last year's debt ratio is significantly negatively correlated with current R&D expenditures for U.S. firms, and positively for Japanese firms. Second, we document a significant positive relation between two-year lagged stock return and current R&D expenditures for U.S., European, Japanese, and large-size British firms. Finally, we find a significant positive relation between last year's tax payments and current R&D expenditures for Japanese firms, and a significant negative relation for medium-size and small-size U.S. firms.

Firms with lower leverage are not only less likely to experience financial distress but are also better positioned to acquire assets from other distressed firms. With endogenous asset sales and values, each firm’s debt choice then depends on the choices of its industry peers. With indivisible assets, otherwise-identical firms may adopt different debt policies, with some choosing highly levered operations (to take advantage of ongoing debt benefits) and others choosing more conservative policies to wait for acquisition opportunities. Our key empirical implication is that the acquisition channel can induce firms to reduce debt when assets become more redeployable.

Our article comprehensively reexamines the performance of variables that have been suggested by the academic literature to be good predictors of the equity premium. We find that by and large, these models have predicted poorly both in-sample (IS) and out-of-sample (OOS) for 30 years now; these models seem unstable, as diagnosed by their out-of-sample predictions and other statistics; and these models would not have helped an investor with access only to available information to profitably time the market.