This paper extends a model by Brander and Lewis [Brander, J., Lewis, T., 1986. Oligopoly and financial structure: The limited liability effect. American Economic Review 76, 956–970] on the relationship between capital structure, investment and product market competition based on the limited liability effect of debt. Empirical papers (see for example Campello [Campello, M., 2003. Capital structure and product markets interactions: Evidence from business cycles. Journal of Financial Economics 68, 353–378], and Chevalier [Chevalier, J., 1995a. Capital structure and product market competition: Empirical evidence from the supermarket industry. American Economic Review 85, 415–435; Chevalier, J., 1995b. Do LBO supermarkets charge more? An empirical analysis of the effect of LBOs on supermarket pricing. Journal of Finance 50, 1095–1112]) generally reject the limited liability theories in favor of the predatory theories because leverage leads to less investment and weaker product market competition. This paper shows that when firms also have an investment choice, leverage can lead to weaker product market competition in a limited liability model. In addition, non-zero leverage is still optimal within this model based solely on the limited liability effect. In predatory models debt is motivated by issues outside of product market concerns, for example to solve an agency problem. Finally, this model is also consistent with the investment decisions documented empirically.

This is an exploration of how bidding behavior of firms in various auctions is affected by their capital structure. The theoretical model considers a first-price sealed bid and an English auction. We find that as debt levels increase, firms tend to reduce their bids. The lower bids give the competition incentives to reduce their bids as well. These results are investigated empirically using data from the 1994-1995 FCC spectrum auctions. Consistent with the theoretical model, higher debt levels of the bidding firm and of the competition tend to lead to lower bids. Additional determinants of bidding behavior in these auctions are also analyzed.

This paper examines the influence of capital structure change on the value creation from asset sales. We find significant positive equity and debt excess returns are concentrated in the subsample of highly leveraged firms that use the proceeds to retire debt. Low leverage firms display no consistent significant excess equity or bond returns. The existent literature has focused on efficiency redistribution, increase in focus, and access to capital for investment as the primary drivers of value creation from asset sales and agency costs as a major factor that mitigates this value creation. The evidence presented in this paper suggests that the primary driver of value creation is from capital structure change for highly leveraged firms.

This paper examines the effect of corporate equity ownership on investment when firms have product market relationships. Firms have incentives to hold long equity positions when their products are complements. These equity positions induce the firms to increase their real investment expenditures. In contrast, firms have incentives to hold short equity positions when their products are substitutes. These short positions commit the firms to a more aggressive product market stance, and also result in increased real investment expenditures. Our model offers an explanation for the empirical relationship between the establishment of corporate equity stakes and increased investment spending documented by Allen and Phillips (2000).

This paper investigates how firms’ bidding behavior in various auctions is affected by capital structure. A theoretical model is developed where the first price sealed bid and the English auction are examined. We find as debt levels increase, firms tend to decrease their bids. The lower bids give the competition incentives to decrease their bid as well. These results are then investigated empirically using the recent FCC spectrum auctions. Consistent with the theoretical model, larger debt levels of the bidding firm and the competition tend to lead to lower bids. Additional determinants of bidding behavior in these auctions are also analyzed.