We examine the link between the excess value of a diversified firm and the value of its internal capital market. Subsidies to small financially constrained segments with good relative investment opportunities significantly increase excess value, while transfers of resources from segments with good relative investment opportunities significantly decrease excess value. Of interest is that subsidies to small financially constrained segments with poor relative investment opportunities also significantly increase excess value. However, there is little evidence that this result depends on the diversity of a firm's investment opportunities. We conclude that financing constraints drive the relationship between the internal capital market and firm value.

A model of the equity takeover premium is developed that demonstrates a direct link between the percentage premium paid to target shareholders and the target firm's capital structure and asset structure. We test the model using a sample of 145 cash tender offers and find that target abnormal returns increase with the target's liability to equity ratio and decrease with the target's financial asset to equity ratio. The addition of these variables dramatically improves the explanatory power of regressions explaining percentage takeover premiums paid to target shareholders.

We explore the link between open-market share repurchases (OMRs) and asymmetric information based on financial reporting quality and find that opaque firms experience positive abnormal returns of twice the magnitude of those of transparent firms. These significant differences remain after controlling for governance, earnings management, and firm characteristics. We document significantly positive long-run postannouncement returns for opaque firms, but not for transparent firms. We find that takeover activity and premiums rise with repurchase activity by opaque firms, which may explain some of the wealth effects. Our results suggest that asymmetric information plays an important role in the wealth effects around OMRs.

Change-in-control covenants first became commonplace towards the end of the takeover wave in the 1980s. We examine merger and acquisition activity from 1991 to 2006 to see how such covenant protection influences the wealth effects and probability of takeovers. Examining a sample of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) we find bondholders with such covenant protection experience average wealth effects of 2.30% while unprotected bonds experience −6.76% upon the announcement of an LBO. Furthermore, we document that the existence of bondholder change-in-control covenants cuts the firm's probability of being targeted in an LBO in half. We also find that change-in-control covenants reduce the probability of being targeted in non-LBO takeovers, but the effect appears less dramatic.

This paper examines whether open market share repurchases deter takeovers. We model pre‐repurchase takeover probability as a latent variable and examine its impact on the firm's decision to repurchase shares. Given specification tests reject the Tobit model, we turn to the censored quantile regression method of Powell (1986, Journal of Econometrics 32, 143–155). We find a significantly positive relation between open market share repurchases and takeover probability, and we reconcile empirical findings in previous studies that contradict predictions. Repurchase activity is inversely related to firm size, consistent with smaller firms having greater information asymmetry, and is related to temporary, but not permanent, cash flows.

Previous research demonstrates that a firm's common stock price tends to fall when it issues new public securities. By contrast, commercial bank loans elicit significantly positive borrower returns. This article investigates whether the lender's identity influences the market's reaction to a loan announcement. Although the authors find no significant difference between the market's response to bank and nonbank loans, they do find that lenders with a higher credit rating are associated with larger abnormal borrower returns. This evidence complements earlier findings that an auditor's or investment banker's perceived 'quality' signals valuable information about firm value to uninformed market investors.

We explore information spillovers and cross-monitoring between the stock and loan markets, focusing on the roles of short sellers and banks. Using Regulation SHO that directly affects short-selling constraints in the stock market but is exogenous to the loan market, we find that only those firms without bank monitors exhibit significant stock price declines upon the announcement of SHO. We also document that while short interest increases following SHO, it increases far less for firms with bank monitors. Using bank and lending relationship characteristics, we find SHO returns increase in the bank's ability and incentive to monitor. Our exploration of equity ownership structure reveals that the presence of block holders and dedicated owners has little to no effect on our results, suggesting that bank monitors complement shareholder monitoring efforts.

We explore how rival firms respond when firms in their industry violate debt covenants. We find that rival firms increase advertising expense, and that this increase is proportional to the size of industry violators’ pre-existing market share. Rival firm product-market share also increases in the industry market share of violators, and this relation is more pronounced when products are more substitutable. Rival firm operating performance also increases in proportion to the industry market share of violators. Overall, these findings suggest that the increased creditor control associated with covenant violations has a significant influence on rival firms and product-market competition.

We explore the motives and consequences of bond tender offers announced in connection with mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We find merging firms use bond tender offers strategically to renegotiate with bondholders to gain financial flexibility by reducing leverage and eliminating covenants, and to curtail the coinsurance benefits associated with M&A. Moreover, we find bondholder wealth effects depend not only on the bond's own characteristics, but also on the characteristics of its sibling bonds. Finally, the use of bond tender offers in M&A is associated with increased likelihood of deal consummation and lower acquisition premiums.

Financial relationships can alleviate the adverse effects of asymmetric information and agency costs on outside stakeholders. We examine announcement returns to PIPE transactions, conditional on the contract terms and identity of the investor. We find that the influence of contract terms on announcement returns depends on investor identity. For PIPEs with hedge fund investors, the inclusion of control terms associates with much larger announcement returns. In contrast, announcement returns for PIPEs, involving strategic investors, are less dependent on the existence of control terms. We find the opposite for liquidity terms. Namely, announcement returns are dramatically different for strategic investors with and without liquidity terms, while inclusion of liquidity terms is less influential when PIPEs involve hedge funds. Our findings suggest that investor identity and contract terms jointly influence market reactions to PIPEs.