Many firms issue hybrid securities, such as convertible debt, instead of standard securities like straight debt or common equity. Theoretical arguments suggest that convertible debt minimizes costs for firms facing high debt- and equity-related external financing costs. Theory also suggests that an appropriately designed convertible security provides efficient investment incentives. We show, however, that firms on average perform poorly following the issuance of convertible debt. The empirical evidence suggests that the efficient investment decisions predicted by theory are not in fact achieved by the actual design and issuance of convertible debt securities. An alternative interpretation of convertible debt offers is that investors ration the participation of some issuers in the seasoned equity market.

This paper develops and tests procedures for ranking the performance of security analysts based on the timeliness of their earnings forecasts, the abnormal trading volume associated with these forecasts, and forecast accuracy. Our framework provides an objective assessment of analyst quality that differs from the standard approach, which uses survey evidence to rate analysts. We find that lead analysts identified by our measure of forecast timeliness have a greater impact on stock prices than follower analysts. Further, we find that performance rankings based on forecast timeliness are more informative than rankings based on abnormal trading volume and forecast accuracy. We also present evidence that analyst's forecast revisions are correlated with recent stock price performance, suggesting that security analysts use publicly available information to revise their earnings forecasts.