Recently, calendar spread futures, futures contracts whose underlying asset is the difference of two futures contracts with different delivery dates, have been successfully introduced for a number of financial futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. A spread futures contract is not an obvious financial innovation, as it is a derivative on a derivative security: a spread futures position can be replicated by taking positions in the two underlying futures contracts, both of which may already be quite liquid. This paper provides a motivation for this innovation, demonstrating how the introduction of spread futures can, by changing the relative trading patterns of hedgers and informed traders, affect equilibrium bid–ask spreads, improve hedger welfare, and potentially improve market-maker expected profits. These results are robust both to allowing serial correlation of asset price changes, and investor preference for skewness.

I characterize the optimal design of a new futures market (an innovation) by an exchange in the presence of market frictions. Futures markets are characterized by both the contract and the level of trader participation; both can be determined by an exchange. A game in which exchanges simultaneously design markets is considered, and a particular equilibrium (not necessarily unique) is constructed. A game in which exchanges sequentially design markets (and incur design costs) is also considered and the (generically unique) equilibrium is constructed. The nature of equilibrium with multiple exchanges is discussed in these simultaneous and sequential settings, illustrating the role played by liquidity considerations both in market design and in the nature of competition between exchanges.

I characterize the optimal design of a new futures market (an innovation) by an exchange in the presence of market frictions. Futures markets are characterized by both the contract and the level of trader participation; both can be determined by an exchange. A game in which exchanges simultaneously design markets is considered, and a particular equilibrium (not necessarily unique) is constructed. A game in which exchanges sequentially design markets (and incur design costs) is also considered and the (generically unique) equilibrium is constructed. The nature of equilibrium with multiple exchanges is discussed in these simultaneous and sequential settings, illustrating the role played by liquidity considerations both in market design and in the nature of competition between exchanges.

[I characterize the optimal design of a new futures market (an innovation) by an exchange in the presence of market frictions. Futures markets are characterized by both the contract and the level of trader participation; both can be determined by an exchange. A game in which exchanges simultaneously design markets is considered, and a particular equilibrium (not necessarily unique) is constructed. A game in which exchanges sequentially design markets (and incur design costs) is also considered and the (generically unique) equilibrium is constructed. The nature of equilibrium with multiple exchanges is discussed in these simultaneous and sequential settings, illustrating the role played by liquidity considerations both in market design and in the nature of competition between exchanges.]

[Corporate finance researchers have long been puzzled by low corporate debt ratios given debt's corporate tax advantage. This article recognizes that firm value typically reflects a growing stream of earnings, while current debt reflects a nongrowing stream of interest payments. Debt to value is therefore a distorted measure of corporate tax shielding. Even with very small debt-related costs, this may explain the observed magnitude and cross-sectional variation of debt ratios. Since this variation may be independent of tax shielding, debt ratios provide an inappropriate framework for empirically examining the trade-off theory of capital structure.]

Corporate finance researchers have long been puzzled by low corporate debt ratios given debt's corporate tax advantage. This article recognizes that firm value typically reflects a growing stream of earnings, while current debt reflects a nongrowing stream of interest payments. Debt to value is therefore a distorted measure of corporate tax shielding. Even with very small debt-related costs, this may explain the observed magnitude and cross-sectional variation of debt ratios. Since this variation may be independent of tax shielding, debt ratios provide an inappropriate framework for empirically examining the trade-off theory of capital structure.

Executive stock options differ from exchange-traded options because of vesting and portability restrictions. Executive departure from the firm forces early exercise, reducing the value of executive options. Current methodology calculates the option value by multiplying the Black-Scholes option price by the departure probability. This ignores the possibility that executive departure is less likely when stock price is high, and thus is correlated with the stock price. We show that this correlation implies a substantial increase in option values. A similar situation occurs in performance-based option packages, where the actual number of options granted depends on stock performance.

This paper explores the advantage of private equity in fixing turnaround situations. Meaningful corporate value creation may require addressing operational problems, replacing management, or changing the incentive structure. Change may be implemented under either without change of ownership or through a buyout. The paper derives scenarios under which transferring ownership to private equity prior to implementing a turnaround can emerge as an optimal solution, even when current ownership can conceivably implement the same operational changes as private equity. Also considered is the possibility of investment syndication in which the private equity buyer shares the transaction with other private equity firms. Various alternatives are considered for implementing turnarounds; in particular, ones that allow for management replacement and others that are effectively management buyouts.

This article tests a theoretical model of the basis and open interest of stock index futures. The model is based on the differences between stock and futures in terms of investors' ability to customize stock portfolios and liquidity. Empirical evidence confirms the model's prediction that increased volatility decreases the basis and increases open interest.

In this paper, we examine how stock option usage affects total corporate payout. Using fixed-effects panel data estimators on various samples of ExecuComp firms from 1993 to 2005, we find the higher the executive stock options, the lower the total payout, ceteris paribus. We also find some evidence that firms increase payouts through repurchases in order to offset earnings per share dilution that occurs due to usage of executive and non-executive stock options. However, incentives from not having dividend protection for options appear to dominate those from antidilution, resulting in lower total payout for firms with higher options usage.