The contributions of asset selection and incremental leverage to buyout investment performance are more important than typically assumed or estimated to be. Buyout funds select small firms with distinct value characteristics. Public equities with these characteristics have high risk-adjusted returns relative to common factors. Adding incremental leverage to a publicly traded stock portfolio increases both risks and mean returns in this sample. Direct investments in private equity funds earn lower mean returns than a replicating strategy designed to mimic these key economic features of their investment process with public equities and brokerage loans.

We investigate the economic role of mergers by performing a comparative study of mergers and internal corporate investment at the industry and firm levels. We find strong evidence that merger activity clusters through time by industry, whereas internal investment does not. Mergers play both an “expansionary” and “contractionary” role in industry restructuring. During the 1970s and 1980s, excess capacity drove industry consolidation through mergers, while peak capacity utilization triggered industry expansion through non-merger investments. In the 1990s, this phenomenon is reversed, as industries with strong growth prospects, high profitability, and near capacity experience the most intense merger activity.

This paper examines institutional price pressure in equity markets by studying mutual fund transactions caused by capital flows from 1980 to 2004. Funds experiencing large outflows tend to decrease existing positions, which creates price pressure in the securities held in common by distressed funds. Similarly, the tendency among funds experiencing large inflows to expand existing positions creates positive price pressure in overlapping holdings. Investors who trade against constrained mutual funds earn significant returns for providing liquidity. In addition, future flow-driven transactions are predictable, creating an incentive to front-run the anticipated forced trades by funds experiencing extreme capital flows.

Traditional risk factor models indicate that hedge funds capture pre‐fee alphas of 6% to 10% per annum over the period from 1996 to 2012. At the same time, the hedge fund return series is not reliably distinguishable from the returns of mechanical S&P 500 put‐writing strategies. We show that the high excess returns to hedge funds and put‐writing are consistent with an equilibrium in which a small subset of investors specialize in bearing downside market risks. Required rates of return in such an equilibrium can dramatically exceed those suggested by traditional models, affecting inference about the attractiveness of these investments.

This paper examines the trading behavior of professional investors around 2,130 mergers announced between 1994 and 2000. We find considerable support for the existence of price pressure around mergers caused by uninformed shifts in excess demand, but that these effects are short‐lived, consistent with the notion that short‐run demand curves for stocks are not perfectly elastic. We estimate that nearly half of the negative announcement period stock price reaction for acquirers in stock‐financed mergers reflects downward price pressure caused by merger arbitrage short selling, suggesting that previous estimates of merger wealth effects are biased downward.

We examine 82 situations where the market value of a company is less than its subsidiary. These situations imply arbitrage opportunities, providing an ideal setting to study the risks and market frictions that prevent arbitrageurs from immediately forcing prices to fundamental values. For 30 percent of the sample, the link between the parent and its subsidiary is severed before the relative value discrepancy is corrected. Furthermore, returns to a specialized arbitrageur would be 50 percent larger if the path to convergence was smooth rather than as observed. Uncertainty about the distribution of returns and characteristics of the risks limits arbitrage.

The central insight of asset pricing is that a security's value depends both on its distribution of payoffs across economic states and on state prices. In fixed income markets, many investors focus exclusively on estimates of expected payoffs, such as credit ratings, without considering the state of the economy in which default occurs. Such investors are likely to be attracted to securities whose payoffs resemble economic catastrophe bonds—bonds that default only under severe economic conditions. We show that many structured finance instruments can be characterized as economic catastrophe bonds, but offer far less compensation than alternatives with comparable payoff profiles.

This paper models transaction costs as the rents that a monopolistic market maker extracts from impatient investors who trade via limit orders. We show that limit orders are American options. The limit prices inducing immediate execution of the order are functionally equivalent to bid and ask prices and can be solved for various transaction sizes to characterize the market maker's entire supply curve. We find considerable empirical support for the model's predictions in the cross‐section of NYSE firms. The model produces unbiased, out‐of‐sample forecasts of abnormal returns for firms added to the S&P 500 index.