Two core meanings of “utility” are distinguished. “Decision utility” is the weight of an outcome in a decision. “Experienced utility” is hedonic quality, as in Bentham's usage. Experienced utility can be reported in real time (instant utility), or in retrospective evaluations of past episodes (remembered utility). Psychological research has documented systematic errors in retrospective evaluations, which can induce a preference for dominated options. We propose a formal normative theory of the total experienced utility of temporally extended outcomes. Measuring the experienced utility of outcomes permits tests of utility maximization and opens other Unes of empirical research.

This paper reports measures of preference parameters relating to risk tolerance, time preference, and intertemporal substitution. These measures are based on survey responses to hypothetical situations constructed using an economic theorist's concept of the underlying parameters. The individual measures of preference parameters display heterogeneity. Estimated risk tolerance and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution are essentially uncorrelated across individuals. Measured risk tolerance is positively related to risky behaviors, including smoking, drinking, failing to have insurance, and holding stocks rather than Treasury bills. These relationships are both statistically and quantitatively significant, although measured risk tolerance explains only a small fraction of the variation of the studied behaviors.

Myopic loss aversion is the combination of a greater sensitivity to losses than to gains and a tendency to evaluate outcomes frequently. Two implications of myopic loss aversion are tested experimentally. 1. Investors who display myopic loss aversion will be more willing to accept risks if they evaluate their investments less often. 2. If all payoffs are increased enough to eliminate losses, investors will accept more risk. In a task in which investors learn from experience, both predictions are supported. The investors who got the most frequent feedback (and thus the most information) took the least risk and earned the least money.

This paper develops and tests an option-style valuation model, whose main prediction is that equity value is a convex function of both earnings and book value, where the function depends on the relative values of earnings and book value. Earnings provides a measure of how the firm's resources are currently used. Book value provides a measure of the value of the firm's resources, independent of how the resources are currently used. When the ratio earnings/book value is high, the firm is likely to continue its current way of using resources, and earnings is the more important determinant of equity value. When earnings/book value is low, the firm is more likely to exercise the option to adapt its resources to a superior alternative use, and book value becomes the more important determinant of equity value. Evidence from a variety of empirical specifications is consistent with the convexity prediction.

We test both the unconditional and conditional Mean Variance Efficiency of the UK stockmarket, paying particular attention to choosing a suitable set of instruments for the conditional version of the model. By considering more carefully than previous authors the pricing of economic risk within the mean-variance framework we show that certain instruments can enhance the basic model structure. Given the tendency for financial market data to display non-constancy in variance and non-normality we employ the GMM procedure described in Hansen (1982), which requires much weaker distributional assumptions than the more traditional OLS techniques. We discuss forming portfolios of stocks using both size and dividend yield as a criterion to achieve a suitable spread of risk and return, and find that our conclusions are sensitive both to the method of portfolio formation and to the choice of estimator. This is an important finding given the problem of thin trading associated with the size ordering of UK stocks. We find some support for both the unconditional and conditional version of the CAPM, though we are cautious about our conclusions given the instability of the parameter estimates.

I. FOUNDATIONS. 1. Introduction and Overview. 2. The Financial Environment: Concepts and Principles. 3. Accounting, Cash Flows, and Taxes. II. VALUE AND CAPITAL BUDGETING. 4. The Time Value of Money. 5. Valuing Bonds and Stocks. 6. Business Investment Rules. 7. Capital Budgeting Cash Flows. 8. Capital Budgeting in Practice. III. RISK AND RETURN. 9. Risk and Return: Stocks. 10. Risk and Return: Asset Pricing Models. 11. Risk, Return, and Capital Budgeting. 12. Risk, Return, and Contingent Outcomes. 13. Risk, Return, and Agency Theory. IV. CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND DIVIDEND POLICY. 14. Capital Market Efficiency: Explanation & Implications. 15. Capital Structure Policy. 16. Managing Capital Structure. 17. Dividend Policy. V. LONG-TERM FINANCING. 18. Issuing Securities and the Role of Investment Banking. 19. Long-Term Debt. 20. Leasing and Other Asset-Based Financing. 21. Derivatives and Hedging. VI. WORKING CAPITAL MANAGEMENT. 22. Cash and Working Capital Management. 23. Accounts Receivable and Inventory. 24. Financial Planning. VII. SPECIAL TOPICS. 25. Mergers and Acquisitions. 26. Financial Distress. 27. International Corporate Finance.

This paper examines the factors influencing the relative weights placed on financial and non-financial performance measures in CEO bonus con- tracts. We find that the use of non-financial measures increases with the level of regulation, the extent to which the firm follows an innovation-oriented strategy, the adoption of strategic quality initiatives, and the noise in financial measures. We find no evidence that the choice of performance measures in bonus contracts is associated with the level of financial distress or the value of CEO equity holdings relative to salary and bonus. Our results also provide no support for the hypothesis that CEOs with greater influence over the board of directors are more likely to be compensated based on non-financial measures.