The most recently issued, on-the-run, Treasuries are extremely liquid and frequently trade at a premium in both the cash and repo, or financing, markets. Previous research suggests that both the cash and repo premiums reflect demand from buy-and-hold investors who value the superior liquidity of these securities and are reluctant to lend them in the repo market. We find evidence that premiums in the repo market are also closely related to market participants’ demand to hedge interest rate risk associated with their holdings of fixed income securities.

I examine the relation between the presence of governance provisions and corporate innovation for a sample of firms between 1984 and 1997. I find a positive relation between four proxies for innovation and the broad Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (2003) Index. However, in subsample analyses, I find that only those provisions that officers and directors actively adopt are positively related to innovation; coverage by state-level antitakeover legislation is typically unassociated or negatively associated with innovation. The evidence suggests that it is the visibility of officers and directors' actions rather than the potency of the takeover protection that best explains the observed pattern.

Recent years have seen a sharp decline in the use of balance sheet-based covenants in private debt contracts. I hypothesize that changes in accounting standards can explain part of this decline. Standard setting has shifted towards a “balance sheet approach”, which I predict has made the balance sheet less useful for contracting. I measure the effect of the balance sheet approach on specific borrowers using a volatility ratio. I find that borrowers with greater volatility ratios are less likely to have balance sheet-based covenants. This evidence is consistent with reductions in the contracting usefulness of the balance sheet being associated with reductions in balance sheet covenants.

Firms increasingly issue shares for the purpose of cash savings. During the 1970s, 1.00 of issuance resulted in 0.23 of cash savings; over the most recent decade, 1.00 of issuance resulted in 0.60 of cash savings. This increase is caused by increasing precautionary motives. Proxies for precautionary motives increase over the sample period, and firm-level increases in these proxies are associated with firm-level increases in share issuance–cash savings. Share issuance–cash savings are inversely related to issuance costs, suggesting that firms issue and save when costs are low, so as to avoid issuing when costs are high. This framework can also help explain patterns and trends in share issuance activity over time. Market timing does not explain these effects, as share issuance–cash savings are not related to post-issuance stock returns.

Standard approaches to building and estimating dynamic term structure models rely on the assumption that yields can serve as the factors. However, the assumption is neither theoretically necessary nor empirically supported. This article documents that almost half of the variation in bond risk premia cannot be detected using the cross-section of yields. Fluctuations in this hidden component have strong forecast power for both future short-term interest rates and excess bond returns. They are also negatively correlated with aggregate economic activity, but macroeconomic variables explain only a small fraction of variation in the hidden factor. The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.

[Standard approaches to building and estimating dynamic term structure models rely on the assumption that yields can serve as the factors. However, the assumption is neither theoretically necessary nor empirically supported. This article documents that almost half of the variation in bond risk premia cannot be detected using the cross-section of yields. Fluctuations in this hidden component have strong forecast power for both future short-term interest rates and excess bond returns. They are also negatively correlated with aggregate economic activity, but macroeconomic variables explain only a small fraction of variation in the hidden factor.]

Bookbuilding, the dominant offering mechanism for IPOs, is controversial because of the power it gives underwriters over IPO allocations. Critics argue that allocations could be abused to generate kickbacks for underwriters while proponents hold that allocation power could improve pre-market price discovery. We examine underpricing, bidding, and allocations from two regimes in the Indian IPO market with varying underwriter allocation power. When underwriters control allocations, bookbuilding is associated with lesser underpricing, but the effect quickly dissipates when regulations withdraw allocation powers. Using proprietary datasets of IPO books in both regimes, we find that allocation powers are used quite extensively. Identical bids can receive significantly different allocations, which depend not only on the bid but also on the bidder identity. When allocation powers are withdrawn, we find evidence of bidder exit, new bidder entry, and altered bidding strategies with exit by both favored and unfavored bidders. Our evidence supports bookbuilding theories in which giving underwriters allocation powers assists in pre-market price discovery.

The higher legislative success of parliamentary governments relative to presidential governments has been used to argue that legislative success is driven by parliamentary governments' superior agenda power or their control of legislative majorities. We show that this approach is at odds with some of the empirical regularities across and within political systems. We then propose a legislative bargaining model to elucidate this puzzle. In the model, the policies of a confidence-dependent parliamentary government enjoy more predictable support from governing coalition members because their short-term policy goals are less important than the government's survival. Coalition support is stronger when the government has more agenda power and is weaker with a larger ruling coalition. We explore the empirical implications of these findings and their consequences for the comparative study of legislative institutions.