This paper examines the relation between chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) incentive levels and their firms’ risk characteristics. I show theoretically that, when CEOs cannot trade the market portfolio, optimal incentive level decreases with firm's nonsystematic risk but is ambiguously affected by firm's systematic risk; when CEOs can trade the market portfolio, optimal incentive level decreases with nonsystematic risk but is unaffected by systematic risk. Empirically I find support for these predictions. Furthermore, I find that incentives for CEOs likely facing binding short-selling constraints decrease with systematic as well as nonsystematic risk, as predicted by theory. Thus, compensation practice is consistent with predictions of theory.

This article studies the role of risk arbitrageurs in takeovers and the source of their advantage. We show how the presence of arbitrageurs affects the value of the target shares, since arbitrageurs are more likely to tender. Therefore an arbitrageur has the informational advantage of knowing he bought shares. In equilibrium, the number of arbitrageurs buying shares and the price they pay are determined endogenously. We also present several empirical implications, including the relationship among trading volume, takeover premium, liquidity of the shares, and the number of risk arbitrageurs investing in one particular deal.

We use the move of Israeli stocks from call auction trading to continuous trading to show that investors have a preference for stocks that trade continuously. When large stocks move from call auction to continuous trading, the small stocks that still trade by call auction experience a significant loss in volume relative to the overall market volume. As small stocks move to continuous trading, they experience an increase in volume and positive abnormal returns because of the associated increase in liquidity. Overall, though, a move to continuous trading increases the volume of large stocks relative to small stocks.

This article studies the role of risk arbitrageurs in takeovers and the source of their advantage. We show how the presence of arbitrageurs affects the value of the target shares, since arbitrageurs are more likely to tender. Therefore an arbitrageur has the informational advantage of knowing he bought shares. In equilibrium, the number of arbitrageurs buying shares and the price they pay are determined endogenously. We also present several empirical implications, including the relationship among trading volume, takeover premium, liquidity of the shares, and the number of risk arbitrageurs investing in one particular deal.

Previous authors have raised the concern that there could be serious survival bias in the observed U.S. equity premium. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we argue that the survival bias in the U.S. data is unlikely to be significant. To reach this conclusion, we introduce a general framework for modeling survival and derive a mathematical relationship between the ex ante survival probability and the average survival bias. This relationship reveals the fundamental difficulty facing the survival argument: High survival bias requires an ex ante probability of market failure, which seems unrealistically high given the history of world financial markets.

We use household data from northeast China to examine the link between investment and land tenure insecurity induced by China's system of village-level land reallocation. We quantify expropriation risk using a hazard analysis of individual plot tenures and incorporate the predicted “hazards of expropriation” into an empirical analysis of plot-level investment. Our focus is on organic fertilizer use, which has long-lasting benefits for soil quality. Although we find that higher expropriation risk significantly reduces application of organic fertilizer, a welfare analysis shows that guaranteeing land tenure in this part of China would yield only minimal efficiency gains.