This paper evaluates a form of contingent capital for financial institutions that converts from debt to equity if two conditions are met: the firm's stock price is at or below a trigger value and the value of a financial institutions index is also at or below a trigger value. This structure potentially protects financial firms during a crisis, when all are performing badly, but during normal times permits a bank performing badly to go bankrupt. I discuss a number of issues associated with the design of a contingent capital claim, including susceptibility to manipulation, whether conversion should be for a fixed dollar amount of shares or a fixed number of shares; uniqueness of the share price when contingent capital is outstanding; the susceptibility of different contingent capital schemes to different kinds of errors (under and over-capitalization); and the losses likely to be incurred by shareholders upon the imposition of a requirement for contingent capital. I also present an illustrative pricing example.

The choice of an overall discount rate for climate change investments depends critically on how different components of investment payoffs are discounted at differing rates reflecting their underlying risk characteristics. Such underlying rates can vary enormously, from ≈ 1 percent for idiosyncratic diversifiable risk to ≈ 7 percent for systematic nondiversifiable risk. Which risk-adjusted rate is chosen can have a huge impact on cost-benefit analysis. In this expository paper, I attempt to set forth in accessible language with a simple linear model what I think are some of the basic issues involved in discounting climate risks. The paper introduces a new concept that may be relevant for climate-change discounting: the degree to which an investment hedges against the bad tail of catastrophic damages by insuring positive expected payoffs even under the worst circumstances. The prototype application is calculating the social cost of carbon. (JEL C51, Q54, Q58)

Christopher L. Foote of Federal Reserve Bank of Boston reviews, “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy” by Casey B. Mulligan. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the decline of employment in the United States after the financial crisis and its failure to recover and considers the role of economic activity and public policy. Discusses the rise of labor productivity; the expanding social safety net; supply and demand—labor market consequences of safety net expansions; means-tested subsidies and economic dynamics since 2007; cross-sectional patterns of employment and hours changes; Keynesian and other models of safety net stimulus; recession-era effects of factor supply and demand—evidence from the seasonal cycle, the construction market, and minimum wage hikes; incentives and compliance under the federal mortgage modification guidelines; and uncertainty, redistribution, and the labor market. Mulligan is Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.”

We study how share repurchases affect the ownership stake of outside blockholders in 950 publicly-traded US corporations from 1996 through 2001, using a control function approach to address the possible endogeneity of repurchases. We find that share repurchases tend to make outside ownership less concentrated: repurchasing 1% of outstanding common equity decreases the fraction owned by large shareholders by around one and a half percentage points. This may decrease outside shareholders' influence over firm decision-making. Our results are confirmed when we restrict the sample to institutional owners, but not to individual owners.

We use variation in the degree of development of local credit markets and matched employer–employee data to assess the role of the firm as an internal credit market. We find that firms operating in less financially developed markets offer lower entry wages but faster wage growth than firms in more financially developed markets. This helps firms finance their operations by implicitly raising funds from workers. We control for local market fixed effects and only exploit time variation in the degree of local financial development induced by an exogenous liberalization, so that the effect we find is unlikely to reflect unobserved local factors that systematically affect wage–tenure profiles. We estimate that the amount of credit generated by implicit lending within the firm is economically important and can be as large as 30 percent of the bank lending. Consistent with credit market imperfections opening up trade opportunities within the firm, we find that the internal rate of return of implicit loans lies between the rate at which workers savings are remunerated in the market and the rate that firms pay on their loans from banks.

Abstract This paper provides evidence that “illusory correlations”—a well-documented source of cognitive bias—lead some agents to be imperfectly rational noise traders. We focus on the head-and-shoulders chart pattern, considered by technical analysts to provide one of the most reliable trading signals. Our findings indicate that the pattern is associated with a substantial rise in trading volume even though it does not profitably predict directional movements. We further substantiate the connection between head-and-shoulders trading and imperfectly rational noise trading by showing that the pattern is associated with lower bid-ask spreads.

Dora L. Costa of University of California, Los Angeles reviews, “Explaining Long-Term Trends in Health and Longevity” by Robert W. Fogel. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the theory and measurement of aging- and health-related variables and considers how the anthropometric approach to historical analysis has helped reinterpret the nature of economic growth. Discusses secular changes in American and British stature and nutrition; second thoughts on the European escape from hunger—famines, chronic malnutrition, and mortality rates; trends in physiological capital—implications for equity in health care; changes in disparities and chronic diseases through the course of the twentieth century; and some common problems in analysis and measurement. Fogel is Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor of American Institutions in the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.”

Abstract Close to 30% of the US population experiences at least one mental or substance abuse disorder each year. Given the prevalence of mental health issues, this paper analyzes the role of mental health and cognitive functioning in household portfolio choice decisions. Generally, we find that households affected by mental health issues decrease investments in risky instruments. Various mental health issues can reduce the probability of holding risky assets by up to 19%. Moreover, single women diagnosed with psychological disorders increase investments in safe assets. We also find that cognitive functioning issues are associated with an increase in financial assets devoted to retirement accounts.

This paper examines “bundled” forecasts, or management earnings forecasts issued concurrently with earnings announcements, which have evolved to become the most common type of management forecast. We describe the econometric problems associated with measuring bundled forecast news and, in particular, provide evidence that the measurement error in the traditional calculation of forecast news is material and is systematically associated with variables frequently studied in forecast-related research. We illustrate an application of conditional expectations to overcome these problems. Finally, we offer guidance and caveats to researchers considering the use of this method in the future.

Majority voting in board elections has emerged as a dominant theme in recent proxy seasons. Analysis of majority voting is important: first, the impact is controversial yet scant empirical evidence exists. Second, Congress is still considering mandating this practice. Third, there has been a tectonic shift in adoptions of majority voting, from 16% to over 67% of S&P 500 firms in just two years. Fourth, the vast majority of shareholder proposals for majority voting are sponsored by unions with little shareholdings. Proponents argue that majority voting aligns shareholder–director interests. Opponents argue that the practice will be disruptive and could result in the failure of boards to meet exchange and SEC requirements. Others assert that majority voting is a paper tiger, amounting to form over substance, particularly since many adoptions are non-binding. We provide an empirical analysis of the wealth effects, characteristics, and efficacy of majority voting. Our results are consistent with the paper tiger hypothesis.