This paper contributes to a new literature on the factors that affect firms' corporate governance practices. We find that regulatory factors are highly important, largely because Korean rules impose special governance requirements on large firms (assets extgreater2 trillion won). Industry factors, firm size, and firm risk are also important. Other firm-specific factors only modestly affect governance even when they are statistically significant. This suggests that many Korean firms do not choose their governance to maximize share price. Among firm-specific factors, the most significant are size (larger firms are better governed) and firm risk (riskier firms are better governed). Long-term averages of profitability and equity finance need are significant, where short-term averages are not. This is consistent with “sticky governance”, in which firms alter their governance slowly in response to economic factors.

If investors are myopic mean-variance optimizers, a stock's expected return is linearly related to its beta in the cross-section. The slope of the relation is the cross-sectional price of risk, which should equal the expected equity premium. We use this simple observation to forecast the equity-premium time series with the cross-sectional price of risk. We also introduce novel statistical methods for testing stock-return predictability based on endogenous variables whose shocks are potentially correlated with return shocks. Our empirical tests show that the cross-sectional price of risk (1) is strongly correlated with the market's yield measures and (2) predicts equity-premium realizations, especially in the first half of our 1927–2002 sample.

Empirically, disincentive effects on work of generous welfare state arrangements tend to appear with a substantial time lag. One explanation is that norms concerning work and benefit dependency delay such effects. We model altruistic parents' economic incentives for instilling such work norms in their children. Anticipated economic support from parents may reduce work effort, and parental altruism makes threats to withdraw such support noncredible. Instilling norms mitigates this problem. However, generous social insurance arrangements tend to weaken parents' incentives to instill such norms in their children. We find empirical support for this prediction.

This paper investigates the equity investments and voting rights that American banks control through their trust business. The paper also studies whether the voting rights American banks control through their trust business help explain their presence on firms’ corporate boards. We find that on average the largest 100 American banks control 10% of the voting rights of S&P 500 firms. We also find that there are several firms in the S&P 500 index in which the top banks control more than 20% of their voting rights, and several firms in the country in which these banks control more than 60% of their voting rights. Our investigation into the presence of American bankers on corporate boards shows that bankers are more likely to join the boards of firms in which they control a large voting stake. We also find that banks’ lending relationships help explain bankers’ board memberships. Our results further show that bankers who have both a voting stake in a firm and a lending relationship with it have a higher likelihood of joining the firm's board of directors.

This study estimates a model of banking company equity returns taking into consideration book value and market value measures of their exposure to emerging markets debt. In this estimation, general systematic market factors, such as the rate of return on the S&P500 stock index and yields on a constant maturity 5-year Treasury note, are held constant such that the exposure variables are accounting for effects due to banks’ exposure to emerging market debt. The results, although not uniform among banking companies, support the hypothesis that the extent of exposure to emerging market debt are factored into the valuation of banking company equity contemporaneously. The inclusion of a market value indicator adds to the explanation of equity returns of some banks. It is also clear that knowing the extent of the exposure on a book value basis is important information alone that may allow investors to take account of or evaluate the effects of changes in banking company equity valuation from LDC debt exposures. We also perform an event study for three major debt crises to determine whether the market recognizes the effects of these events on bank valuation. The event study results show that there is little information from identifying the time period of the crises on banking company equity returns. Explanations for this are that the information of these possible crises has been embedded in bank changes in exposure and that the market valuation of the emerging market debt is already accounted for by our model.

We study dating behavior using data from a Speed Dating experiment where we generate random matching of subjects and create random variation in the number of potential partners. Our design allows us to directly observe individual decisions rather than just final matches. Women put greater weight on the intelligence and the race of partner, while men respond more to physical attractiveness. Moreover, men do not value women's intelligence or ambition when it exceeds their own. Also, we find that women exhibit a preference for men who grew up in affluent neighborhoods. Finally, male selectivity is invariant to group size, while female selectivity is strongly increasing in group size.

Morck, Yeung and Yu show that R2 is higher in countries with less developed financial systems and poorer corporate governance. We show how control rights and information affect the division of risk bearing between managers and investors. Lack of transparency increases R2 by shifting firm-specific risk to managers. Opaque stocks with high R2s are also more likely to crash, that is, to deliver large negative returns. Using stock returns from 40 stock markets from 1990 to 2001, we find strong positive relations between R2 and several measures of opaqueness. These measures also explain the frequency of crashes.

Could the magnitude of the stock market crash of 19.10.1987 be predicted on the base of the data available on the eve of “the black Monday”? How far can the financial market fall, say, once in 40years? We demonstrate that modern methods of Extreme Value Theory can help in answering these questions.