The perfect market paradigm provides a powerful foundation for financial theory. In perfect capital markets, there are no transaction costs, all traders have equal and costless access to information, and traders act as price takers. If existing claims span the state space, excess supply curves are perfectly elastic. Moreover, differences in preferences or beliefs do not result in disagreement among shareholders about firm policies. Underlying this unanimity is the shared valuation of the stock, which translates into agreement about firm strategies. The ability to transact without affecting the market price is central to many important propositions, including the ModiglianiMiller irrelevance theorems. This paper examines the nature of supply curves for corporate equity. Until recently there has been little direct empirical assessment of their elasticity. At issue is whether or not the supposition of shareholder homogeneity of valuations (and its implications) represents a good approximation to actual markets. This paper's call for further empirical evaluation of shareholder valuations echoes the perspective offered by Eugene Fama and Merton Miller, who in discussing perfect markets observed that

This paper documents that firms face upward-sloping supply curves when they repurchase shares in a Dutch auction, and it analyzes the market reaction to these offers. The announcement price increase is highly correlated with the ultimate repurchase premium. Prices decline at expiration only for pro-rated offers. The cumulative return is positive and highly correlated with the repurchase premium, excepting pro-rated offers. Much of this price increase is consistent with movement along an upward-sloping supply curve. Trading volume around the Dutch auction parallels fixed-price repurchases. Supply elasticity is larger for firms with large trading volume, firms included in the S&P 500 Index, and takeover targets.

This paper documents that firms face upward‐sloping supply curves when they repurchase shares in a Dutch auction, and it analyzes the market reaction to these offers. The announcement price increase is highly correlated with the ultimate repurchase premium. Prices decline at expiration only for pro‐rated offers. The cumulative return is positive and highly correlated with the repurchase premium, excepting pro‐rated offers. Much of this price increase is consistent with movement along an upward‐sloping supply curve. Trading volume around the Dutch auction parallels fixed‐price repurchases. Supply elasticity is larger for firms with large trading volume, firms included in the S&P 500 Index, and takeover targets.

This paper documents that firms face upward-sloping supply curves when they repurchase shares in a Dutch auction, and it analyzes the market reaction to these offers. The announcement price increase is highly correlated with the ultimate repurchase premium. Prices decline at expiration only for pro-rated offers. The cumulative return is positive and highly correlated with the repurchase premium, excepting pro-rated offers. Much of this price increase is consistent with movement along an upward-sloping supply curve. Trading volume around the Dutch auction parallels fixed-price repurchases. Supply elasticity is larger for firms with large trading volume, firms included in the S&P 500 Index, and takeover targets.

We examine conditions under which "Veblen effects" arise from the desire to achieve social status by signaling wealth through conspicuous consumption. While Veblen effects cannot ordinarily arise when preferences satisfy a "single-crossing property," they may emerge when this property fails. In that case, "budget" brands are priced at marginal cost, while "luxury" brands, though not intrinsically superior, are sold at higher prices to consumers seeking to advertise wealth. Luxury brands earn strictly positive profits under conditions that would, with standard formulations of preferences, yield marginal-cost pricing. We explore factors that induce Veblen effects, and we investigate policy implications.

This paper analyzes the role of capital structure in the presence of intrafirm influence activities. The hierarchical structure of large organizations inevitably generates attempts by members to influence the distributive consequences of organizational decisions. In corporations, for example, top management can reallocate or eliminate quasi rents earned by their employees, while at the same time, they must rely on these employees to provide them with information vital to their decision making. This creates the opportunity for lower level managers to influence top management's discretionary decisions. As a result, divisional managers may attempt to inflate the corporate perception of their relative contributions to the firm, or to take actions that make the elimination of their rents more costly for the firm. This incentive to influence is especially acute when managers fear losing their jobs, for example in the event of a divestiture. Since the firm's capital structure can affect future divestiture decisions, it can be chosen to reduce or increase the divisional managers' incentives to influence top management's decisions. The control of influence activities arises at the expense of restrictions on future divestiture decisions. Hence, there emerges an optimal capital structure that trades off the costs of influence activities against the costs of making poor divestiture decisions. The findings suggest that capital structure can also be chosen to control influence activities that arise under less extreme motivations. We identify several key factors that determine the optimal capital structure: the top management's prior assessment of the likelihood that it will be optimal to divest a specific division; the costs of influence activities to the firm and to the divisional managers; and the difference in the valuation of the division's assets in the current firm and under alternative uses.

The authors examine conditions under which 'Veblen effects' arise from the desire to achieve social status by signaling wealth through conspicuous consumption. While Veblen effects cannot ordinarily arise when preferences satisfy a 'single-crossing property, ' they may emerge when this property fails. In that case, 'budget' brands are priced at marginal cost, while 'luxury' brands, though not intrinsically superior, are sold at higher prices to consumers seeking to advertise wealth. Luxury brands earn strictly positive profits under conditions that would, with standard formulations of preferences, yield marginal-cost pricing. The authors explore factors that induce Veblen effects and they investigate policy implications.