This article investigates the interaction between market entry, company foreclosure, and capital structure in a duopoly. We find that the order in which firms foreclose is determined not only by differences in firm-specific factors, but also by common economic factors, such as the interest rate and the market profit volatility. We extend the exit model by allowing financially distressed firms to renegotiate their debt contracts through a one-off debt exchange offer. We find that firms with high bankruptcy costs or with prospects of profit improvement can get bigger reductions on their debt repayments. Investigating market entry, we find that financial vulnerability of the incumbent induces earlier entry.

We develop a dynamic agency model of a public corporation. Managers underinvest because of risk aversion. They smooth rents and payout. They do not exploit interest tax shields fully. The interactions of investment, debt, and payout decisions can change drastically depending on managers’preferences. Managers with power utility set investment, debt, and payout proportional to the firm’s net worth, generating a constant (possibly negative) net debt ratio. With exponential utility, investment decisions are separated from decisions about debt and payout. More profitable firms become cash cows, and less profitable firms accumulate debt, as in a pecking-order model.

We develop a theory of income and payout smoothing by firms when insiders know more about income than outside shareholders, but property rights ensure that outsiders can enforce a fair payout. Insiders set payout to meet outsiders' expectations and underproduce to manage future expectations downward. The observed income and payout process are smooth and adjust partially and over time in response to economic shocks. The smaller the inside ownership, the more severe underproduction is, resulting in an "outside equity Laffer curve."

This paper analyzes the timing of mergers motivated by economies of scale. We show that firms have an incentive to merge in periods of economic expansion. Relaxing the assumption that firms are price takers, we find that market power strengthens the firms’ incentive to merge and speeds up merger activity. Finally, comparing mergers with hostile takeovers we show that the way merger synergies are divided not only influences the acquirer's and the acquiree's returns from merging, but also the timing of the restructuring.

Journal Article The Impact of Debt Financing on Entry and Exit in a Duopoly Get access Bart M. Lambrecht Bart M. Lambrecht University of Cambridge Address correspondence to Bart Lambrecht, Judge Institute of Management Studies, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK, or e-mail: [email protected]. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 14, Issue 3, 1 July 2001, Pages 765–804, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/14.3.765 Published: 22 June 2015

Although the academic literature on real options has grown enormously over the past three decades, the adoption of formal real option valuation models by practitioners appears to be lagging. Yet, survey evidence indicates that managers’ decisions are near optimal and consistent with real option theory. We critically review real options research and point out its strengths and weaknesses. We discuss recent contributions published in this issue of the journal and highlight avenues for future research. We conclude that, in some ways, academic research in real options has catching up to do with current practice.

We present a theory of capital investment and debt and equity financing in a real-options model of a public corporation. The theory assumes that managers maximize the present value of their future compensation (managerial rents), subject to constraints imposed by outside shareholders’ property rights to the firm's assets. Absent bankruptcy costs, managers follow an optimal debt policy that generates efficient investment and disinvestment. We show how bankruptcy costs can distort both investment and disinvestment. We also show how managers’ personal wealth constraints can lead to delayed investment and increased reliance on debt financing. Changes in cash flow can cause changes in investment by tightening or loosening the wealth constraints. Firms with weaker investor protection adopt higher debt levels.

We develop a dynamic agency model of a public corporation. Managers underinvest because of risk aversion. They smooth rents and payout. They do not exploit interest tax shields fully. The interactions of investment, debt, and payout decisions can change drastically depending on managers’ preferences. Managers with power utility set investment, debt, and payout proportional to the firm’s net worth, generating a constant (possibly negative) net debt ratio. With exponential utility, investment decisions are separated from decisions about debt and payout. More profitable firms become cash cows, and less profitable firms accumulate debt, as in a pecking-order model.

Traditional theories of capital structure do not explain the puzzling phenomena of zero-leverage firms and negative net debt ratios. We develop a theory where firms adopt a net debt target that acts as a balancing variable between equityholders and managers. Negative (positive) net debt occurs in human (physical) capital intensive industries. Negative net debt arises because tradeable claims cannot be issued against transferable human capital. Heterogeneity in capital structure occurs when firms have debt that is not fully collateralized. Physical capital intensive firms take on high leverage but may underlever to avoid bankruptcy costs. This creates excess rents for managers (even if the supply of human capital is competitive) because wealth constraints prevent managers from coinvesting.