The authors examine the value of bank durability to borrowing firms. The analysis is based on theoretical models of the asset services view of intermediation that imply that private information and associated relationship-specific activities are intrinsic to bank lending. The authors analyze share price effects on firms with lending relationships with Continental Illinois Bank during its de facto failure and subsequent FDIC rescue. They find the bank's impending insolvency had negative effects and the FDIC rescue positi ve effects on client firm share prices. The authors conclude that borro wers incur significant costs in response to unanticipated reductions in bank durability and, thus, are bank stakeholders.

The methods of Michael R. Gibbons and Wayne Ferson (1985) are extended, relaxing the assumption that expected returns are linear functions of predetermined instruments. A model of conditional mean-variance spanning generalizes G. Huberman and S. Kandel (1987). The empirical results indicate that more than a single risk premium is needed to model expected stock and bond returns, but the number of common factors in the expected returns is small. However, when size-based common stock portfolios proxy for the risk factors, the authors reject the hypothesis that four of them describe the conditional expected returns of the other assets.

We examine the value of bank durability to borrowing firms. The analysis is based on theoretical models of the asset services view of intermediation which imply that private information and associated relationship‐specific activities are intrinsic to bank lending. We analyze share price effects on firms with lending relationships with Continental Illinois Bank during its de facto failure and subsequent FDIC rescue. We find the bank's impending insolvency had negative effects and the FDIC rescue positive effects on client firm share prices. We conclude that borrowers incur significant costs in response to unanticipated reductions in bank durability and thus are bank stakeholders.

Most current empirical work finds no evidence that money shocks lower interest rates. We show that these nonresults are mainly due to a failure to model the conditional heteroskedasticity of interest rates. Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) models find a significant liquidity effect where ordinary least squares (OLS) models do not. The existence of a liquidity effect is found using different models and sample periods when ARCH models are used in estimation, but never when OLS is employed.

The methods of Gibbons and Ferson (1985) are extended, relaxing the assumption that expected returns are linear functions of predetermined instruments. A model of conditional mean-variance spanning generalizes Huberman and Kandel (1987). The empirical results indicate that more than a single risk premium is needed to model expected stock and bond returns, but the number of common factors in the expected returns is small. However, when size-based common stock portfolios proxy for the risk factors, we reject the hypothesis that four of them describe the conditional expected returns of the other assets.

The methods of Gibbons and Ferson (1985) are extended, relaxing the assumption that expected returns are linear functions of predetermined instruments. A model of conditional mean‐variance spanning generalizes Huberman and Kandel (1987). The empirical results indicate that more than a single risk premium is needed to model expected stock and bond returns, but the number of common factors in the expected returns is small. However, when size‐based common stock portfolios proxy for the risk factors, we reject the hypothesis that four of them describe the conditional expected returns of the other assets.