We investigate the relation between founding‐family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one‐third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure.

This paper estimates the performance of insider trades on the closely held Oslo Stock Exchange (OSE) during a period of lax enforcement of insider trading regulations. Our data permit construction of a portfolio that tracks all movements of insiders in and out of the OSE firms. Using three alternative performance estimators in a time‐varying expected return setting, we document zero or negative abnormal performance by insiders. The results are robust to a variety of trade characteristics. Applying the performance measures to mutual funds on the OSE, we also document some evidence that the average mutual fund outperforms the insider portfolio.

1. Financial Innovation and The Financial System. 2. Securities Innovation: A Historical and Functional Approach. CASES. 1. Financial Engineering and Debt Securities. 1.1 Arbitrage Fundamentals. Cougars. RJRCHC 1991. Arb in Government Bonds. Coca Cola--Harmless Warrants.1.2 Taxes, Regulation and Accounting: Stimuli to Innovation. Citicorp 1985. Note: Eurodollar Bond. New England Property and Casualty. Schroeders Perpetual. Metromedia.1.3 Securitization. Travelers. Note: MBS. Amex TRS Case. Lehman Case.2. Financial Engineering and Equity Securities. 2.1 Addressing Information Asymmetries. Arley. Avon PERCs. GM PERCs. ALZA series (A-B1-B2-C). British Telecom. RJR 1990. Sally Jameson.2.2 Taxes, Regulation and Accounting: Stimuli to Innovation. ARPPS. MMP. Dart and Kraft. Waste Management.3. Managing Issuers' Exposures. 3.1 Managing Issuers' Exposures. B.F. Goodrich-Rabobank. GM--Liab Management. State of CT Muni Swap. Walt Disney. Gaz de France. American Barrick. Enron.3.2 Managing Investors' Exposures. SLH (A&B). Goldman Sachs Nikkel Put Warrants. Commodity Linked Debt. Note: Commodity Futures. Fidelity Case. Diamond Shamrock Natomas. BEA Associates. LOR: Portfolio Insurance. LOR: SuperTrust.FOUNDATION NOTES. Note: U.S. Government Debt Markets. Note: Foreign Exchange. Note: FX Swaps. Note: Introduction to Options. Note: Option Pricing. Note: Contingent Claims Analysis. Note: Financial Futures. Note: Interest Rate Derivatives.

Substantially revised and updated second edition of Terry Mills' best-selling graduate textbook The Econometric Modelling of Financial Time Series. The book provides detailed coverage of the variety of models that are currently being used in the empirical analysis of financial markets. Covering bond, equity and foreign exchange markets, it is aimed at scholars and practitioners wishing to acquire an understanding of the latest research techniques and findings, and also graduate students wishing to research into financial markets. This second edition includes a great deal of new material, and also provides a more in-depth treatment of two crucial, and related, areas: the theory of integrated processes and cointegration. The new material discusses the distributional properties of asset returns and more recent and novel techniques of analysing and interpreting vector autoregressions that contain integrated and possibly cointegrated variables. Data appendix available online at www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ec/cup.

Trading halts increase, rather than reduce, both volume and volatility. Volume (volatility) in the first full trading day after a trading halt is 230 percent (50 to 115 percent) higher than following “pseudohalts”: nonhalt control periods matched on time of day, duration, and absolute net‐of‐market returns. These results are robust over different halt types and news categories. Higher posthalt volume is observed into the third day while higher posthalt volatility decays within hours. The extent of media coverage is a partial determinant of volume and volatility following both halts and pseudohalts, but a separate halt effect remains after controlling for the media effect.

Trading halts increase, rather than reduce, both volume and volatility. Volume (volatility) in the first full trading day after a trading halt is 230 percent (50 to 115 percent) higher than following “pseudohalts”: nonhalt control periods matched on time of day, duration, and absolute net-of-market returns. These results are robust over different halt types and news categories. Higher posthalt volume is observed into the third day while higher posthalt volatility decays within hours. The extent of media coverage is a partial determinant of volume and volatility following both halts and pseudohalts, but a separate halt effect remains after controlling for the media effect.

We examine the reaction of common stock returns to bond rating changes. While recent studies find a significant negative stock response to downgrades, we argue that this reaction should not be expected for all downgrades because: (1) some rating changes are anticipated by market participants and (2) downgrades because of an anticipated move to transfer wealth from bondholders to stockholders should be good news for stockholders. We find that downgrades associated with deteriorating financial prospects convey new negative information to the capital market, but that downgrades due to changes in firms' leverage do not.

We examine differences in structural characteristics that lead firms of different sizes to react differently to the same economic news. We find that a small firm portfolio contains a large proportion of marginal firms‐firms with low production efficiency and high financial leverage. We construct two size‐matched return indices designed to mimic the return behavior of marginal firms and find that these return indices are important in explaining the time‐series return difference between small and large firms. Furthermore, risk exposures to these indices are as powerful as log(size) in explaining average returns of size‐ranked portfolios.

This paper examines the variance of hourly market returns during 1964-89. Results indicate that return volatility falls from the opening hour until early afternoon and rises thereafter, and is significantly greater for intraday versus overnight periods. Market variance is also shown to change significantly over time, rising after NASDAQ began in 1971, rising after trading in stock options began in 1973, falling after fixed commissions were eliminated in 1975, rising after trading in stock index futures was introduced in 1982, and falling after margin requirements for stock index futures became larger in 1988.