This study examines European stock market reactions to 16 events associated with the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Europe. European IFRS adoption represented a major milestone toward financial reporting convergence yet spurred controversy reaching the highest levels of government. We find an incrementally positive reaction for firms with lower quality pre-adoption information, which is more pronounced for banks, and with higher pre-adoption information asymmetry, consistent with investors expecting net information quality benefits from IFRS adoption. We find an incrementally negative reaction for firms domiciled in code law countries, consistent with investors' concerns over enforcement of IFRS in those countries. Finally, we find a positive reaction to IFRS adoption events for firms with high-quality pre-adoption information, consistent with investors expecting net convergence benefits from IFRS adoption.

We empirically analyze firm‐level uncertainty generated from extreme weather events, guided by a theoretical framework. Stock options of firms with establishments in a hurricane's (forecast) landfall region exhibit large implied volatility increases, reflecting significant uncertainty (before) after impact. Volatility risk premium dynamics reveal that investors underestimate such uncertainty. This underreaction diminishes for hurricanes after Sandy, a salient event that struck the U.S. financial center. Despite constituting idiosyncratic shocks, hurricanes affect hit firms' expected stock returns. Textual analysis of calls between firm management, analysts, and investors reveals that discussions about hurricane impacts remain elevated throughout the long‐lasting high‐uncertainty period after landfall.

Private equity funds pay particular attention to capital structure when executing leveraged buyouts, creating an interesting setting for examining capital structure theories. Using a large, international sample of buyouts from 1980 to 2008, we find that buyout leverage is unrelated to the cross‐sectional factors, suggested by traditional capital structure theories, that drive public firm leverage. Instead, variation in economy‐wide credit conditions is the main determinant of leverage in buyouts. Higher deal leverage is associated with higher transaction prices and lower buyout fund returns, suggesting that acquirers overpay when access to credit is easier.

Public firms that place equity privately experience positive announcements effects, with negative post‐announcement stock‐price performance. This finding is inconsistent with the underreaction hypothesis. Instead, it suggests that investors are overoptimistic about the prospects of firms issuing equity, regardless of the method of issuance. Further, in contrast to public offerings, private issues follow periods of relatively poor operating performance. Thus, investor overoptimism at the time of private issues is not due to the behavioral tendency to overweight recent experience at the expense of long‐term averages.

Richard W. Baker, Jr., Leon T. Kendall, Walter C. Nelson, J. Charles Partee, David Fritz, Harry S. Schwartz, Changing Character of the Real Estate Mortgage Markets: Discussion, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 19, No. 2, Part 1: Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Finance Association, Boston, Massachusetts, December 27-29, 1963 (May, 1964), pp. 321-333

We examine the contracts used to compensate the managers of the seven dual‐purpose investment companies that existed between 1967 and 1985 to determine whether financial incentives in fluence real behavior in the predicted way. The compensation contracts for these funds provided explicit incentives for the production of both capital gains and current income. We model the behavior that an expected compensation‐maximizing agent would exhibit when faced with such contracts and derive several testable implications. Our empirical results are consistent with the theoretical predictions, and so we are able to use this relatively clean setting to contribute to the growing literature concerned with determining the impact of incentive contracts on behavior. A unique and interesting aspect of this study is that the nature of these organizations allows us to provide evidence that the market understood and priced the behavior induced by these contracts.

We examine equity markets’ reaction to the first‐time disclosure of the CEO‐worker pay ratio by U.S. public companies in 2018. We find that firms disclosing higher pay ratios experience significantly lower abnormal announcement returns. Firms whose shareholders are more inequality‐averse experience a more negative market response to high pay ratios. Furthermore, during 2018 more inequality‐averse investors rebalance their portfolios away from stocks with a high pay ratio relative to other investors. Our results suggest that equity markets are concerned about high within‐firm pay dispersion, and investors’ inequality aversion is a channel through which high pay ratios negatively affect firm value.

This paper provides a theoretical explanation for the persistent use of alphabetical name ordering on academic papers in economics. In a context in which market participants are interested in evaluating the relative individual contribution of authors, it is an equilibrium for papers to use alphabetical ordering. Moreover, it is never an equilibrium for authors always to be listed in order of relative contribution. In fact, we show via an example that the alphabetical name ordering norm may be the unique equilibrium, althoug multiple equilibria are also possible. Finally, we charaterize the welfare properties of the noncooperative equilibrium and show it to produce research of lower quality than is optimal and than would be achieved if coauthors were forced to use name ordering to signal relative contribution.

We propose a social choice rule for aggregating preferences elicited from surveys into a marginal adjustment of policy from the status quo. The mechanism is: (i) symmetric in its treatment of survey respondents; (ii) ordinal, using only the orientation of respondents' indifference surfaces; (iii) local, using only preferences in the neighborhood of current policy; and (iv) what we call “first-order strategy-proof,” making the gains from misreporting preferences second order. The mechanism could be applied to guide policy based on how policy affects responses to subjective well-being surveys.