We use an affine asset pricing model to jointly value stocks and bonds. This enables us to derive endogenous correlations and to explain how economic fundamentals influence the correlation between stock and bond returns. The presented model is implemented for G7 post-war economies and its in-sample and out-of-sample performance is assessed by comparing the correlations generated by the model with conventional statistical measures. The affine framework developed in this paper is found to generate stock–bond correlations that are in line with empirically observed figures.

The roughly 9.1% of all U.S. families that are without some type of transaction account (unbanked) are disproportionately represented among minorities. The unbanked often must rely on alternative ways to carry out basic financial transactions such as cashing payroll checks and paying bills. This study analyzes unique survey data and finds that a consumer's decision to patronize check-cashing businesses is jointly made with the decision to be unbanked. For the unbanked, these businesses are an important source of financial services. Attributes that contribute to these decisions, however, vary with the racial/ethnic group. Latent preference effects are also observed to influence this joint decision for blacks and Hispanics. These findings may explain in part why the provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996 have not been more successful in bringing unbanked federal benefits recipients into the financial mainstream. Consumer participation in mainstream financial markets can improve their ability to build assets and create wealth, can protect them from theft and discriminatory, predatory, or otherwise unsavory lending practices, and may promote economic stability and vitality in the communities where they reside. By more fully understanding consumers' financial decisions, policies can be better directed to improve the effectiveness of legislation such as the DCIA of 1996 in encouraging mainstream financial market participation.

The roughly 9.5 percent of all U.S. families that are without some type of transaction account (unbanked) are disproportionately represented by minorities.The unbanked often must rely on alternative ways to carry out basic financial transactions such as cashing payroll checks and paying bills.This study analyzes unique survey data and finds that a consumer's decision to patronize check-cashing businesses is jointly made with the decision to be unbanked.For the unbanked, these businesses are an important source for financial services.Attributes that contribute to these decisions, however, vary for each racial/ethnic group.Latent preference effects are also observed to influence this joint decision for Blacks and Hispanics.These findings may explain in part why the provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996 have not been more successful in bringing unbanked federal benefits recipients into the financial mainstream.Consumer participation in mainstream financial markets can improve their ability to build assets and create wealth, protect them from theft and discriminatory, predatory or unsavory lending practices, and may promote economic stability and vitality in the communities where they reside.By more fully understanding a consumer's financial decisions, policies can be better directed to improve the effectiveness of legislation such as the DCIA of 1996 in encouraging mainstream financial market participation. The Importance of Check-Cashing Businesses to the Unbanked:Racial/Ethnic Differences

We find that technology's effect on employment varies greatly across manufacturing industries. Some industries exhibit a temporary reduction in employment in response to a permanent increase in TFP, whereas many more industries exhibit an employment increase in response to a permanent TFP shock. This raises serious questions about existing work that finds a labor productivity shock has a strong negative effect on employment. There are tantalizing and interesting differences between TFP and labor productivity. We argue that TFP is a more natural measure of technology because labor productivity reflects shifts in the input mix as well as in technology.

Pricing of an American option is complicated since at each time we have to determine not only the option value but also whether or not it should be exercised (early exercise constraint). This makes the valuation of an American option a free boundary problem. Typically at each time there is a particular value of the asset, which marks the boundary between two regions: to one side one should hold the option and to other side one should exercise it. Assuming that investors act optimally, the value of an American option cannot fall below the value that would be obtained if it were exercised early. Effectively, this means that the American option early exercise feature transforms the original linear pricing partial differential equation into a nonlinear one. We consider a penalty method approach in which the free and moving boundary is removed by adding a small and continuous penalty term to the Black–Scholes equation; consequently,the problem can be solved on a fixed domain. Analytical solutions of the Black–Scholes model of American option problems are seldom available and hence such derivatives must be priced by stable and efficient numerical techniques. Standard numerical methods involve the need to solve a system of nonlinear equations, evolving from the finite difference discretization of the nonlinear Black–Scholes model, at each time step by a Newton-type iterative procedure. We implement a novel linearly implicit scheme by treating the nonlinear penalty term explicitly, while maintaining superior accuracy and stability properties compared to the well-known θ-methods.

Prior studies, such as Claessens et al.’s [Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J., Lang, L., 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholding. Journal of Finance 57, 2741–2771], suggest that deviation between ultimate control and ownership decreases firm value (due to the entrenchment effects of large shareholding). Using a sample of Canadian firms, we study the relation of ultimate control and ownership with an important dimension of stock liquidity – bid–ask spread. We find that stocks with greater deviations between ultimate control and ownership have a larger information asymmetry component of their bid–ask spread and wider bid–ask spread. Our results are consistent with the notion that the ultimate owners of these stocks may have selfish agendas. To increase the probability of the agendas being implemented, the firms may have poor information disclosure, resulting in poor stock liquidity.

We argue that “narrow framing,” whereby an agent who is offered a new gamble evaluates that gamble in isolation, may be a more important feature of decision-making than previously realized. Our starting point is the evidence that people are often averse to a small, independent gamble, even when the gamble is actuarially favorable. We find that a surprisingly wide range of utility functions, including many nonexpected utility specifications, have trouble explaining this evidence, but that this difficulty can be overcome by allowing for narrow framing. Our analysis makes predictions as to what kinds of preferences can most easily address the stock market participation puzzle.

In this study we report the results of an experiment that examines how relatively sophisticated financial statement users interpret management stock option compensation disclosures under SFAS No. 123 and SFAS No. 123R. We predict and find that mandated income statement recognition, as required under SFAS No. 123R, leads to higher user assessments of reliability than either voluntary income statement recognition or voluntary footnote disclosure, options allowed under SFAS No. 123. Users view voluntary footnote disclosure as the least reliable reporting alternative. We also examine the amount users invest in response to these accounting treatments, and find that users invest more in a firm when management chooses income statement recognition than when management chooses footnote disclosure. We find no difference in investment amounts between mandated recognition and either voluntary recognition or footnote disclosure. Finally, although we find that these results are insensitive to whether management explicitly disavows the reliability of stock option expense, we present evidence that, in side-by-side comparisons, where one firm disavows and the other does not, disavowals may affect user judgments and decisions.

Many randomized experiments are plagued by attrition, even among subjects receiving more effective treatments. We estimate the subject’s utility associated with the receipt of treatment, as revealed by dropout behavior, to evaluate treatment effects. Utility is a function of both “publicly observed” outcomes and side effects privately observed by the subject. We analyze an influential AIDS clinical trial, ACTG 175, and show that for many subjects, AZT yields the highest level of utility despite having the smallest impact on the publicly observed outcome because of mild side effects. Moreover, although subjects enter the experiment uncertain of treatment effectiveness (and often the treatment received), the learning process implies that early dropout in ACTG 175 is primarily driven by side effects, whereas later attrition reflects declining treatment effectiveness.