We show that demand effects generated by institutional frictions can influence systematic return predictability patterns in stocks and mutual funds. Identification relies on a reform to the Morningstar rating system, which we show caused a structural break in style-level positive feedback trading by mutual funds. As a result, momentum-related factors in stocks, as well as performance persistence and the “dumb money effect” in mutual funds, experienced a sharp decline. Consistent with the proposed channel, return predictability declined right after the reform, was limited to the U.S. market, and was concentrated in factors and mutual funds most exposed to the mechanism.

This study examines how antitrust law adoptions affect horizontal merger and acquisition outcomes. Using the staggered introduction of competition laws in 20 countries, we find antitrust regulation decreases acquirers’ 5-day cumulative abnormal returns surrounding horizontal merger announcements. A decrease in deal value, target book assets, and industry peers’ announcement returns are consistent with the market power hypothesis. Exploiting antitrust law adoptions addresses a downward bias to an estimated effect of antitrust enforcement. The potential bias from heterogeneous treatment effects does not nullify our results. Overall, antitrust policies seem to deter post-merger monopolistic gains, potentially improving customer welfare.

We posit the opportunity cost of time required to manage risky investments, including conducting research and performance monitoring, as a potential explanation for the equity premium puzzle. An economic agent, who should allocate a limited amount of time to labor, leisure, and risky investment, is subject to the opportunity time cost of investment activity, which is foregone labor or leisure. Our model envisages its impact on equity premium and volatility in the presence of such a time constraint, in particular, with closed-form solutions to the risky asset returns, volatility, and risk-free rate in a simple equilibrium framework wherein agents have log utility. The model is shown to yield excess return and volatility consistent with historical values observed in the U.S. stock market, even with a small amount of time cost. In addition, the model enables us to sort out the impact of endogenous labor/leisure choice on return dynamics by comparing it with the exogenous labor income case.

This study presents theory and some exploratory empirical work on several separate strands of monetarism in an international context and reports the results of tests of the two interrelated hypotheses: (a) the United States' monetary expansion was responsible forthe exportation of inflation to the rest of the world during the period of generally fixed exchange rates that lasted from the end of World War II until August 1971 (followed by the Smithsonian revaluations and generalized floating in March 1973), and (b) foreign nations could not control their money supplies, even in the short run, to prevent importing inflation. Succinctly stated, the monetarist approach to macroeconomic phenomena holds that money is preeminent in determining the short-run shocks to real output and the long-run price level of an economy. However, received theory is simply not clear as to whose money is most important in an international context. Is it the domestic money stock which is kept relativelyindependent of foreign forces under fixed exchange rates through astute central bank policy, at least in the short run? Is it the rest of the world money stock which, under fixed exchange rates, is a close substitute for domestic money? Or is it the money stock of the so-called world's banker, the United States, which drives foreign economies? We address these issues and others in our empirical analysis.

The major objective of Ken Eades' paper is to provide new insights into the role of dividend changes as information signaling devices. Eades argues that the traditional notion of the “information content of dividends” is based more on conjecture than on a well-specified economic model. Eades suggests that without a well-specified model, we are limited significantly in producing testable hypotheses about dividend signaling. Therefore, Eades extends the dividend signaling model of Bhattacharya [2] and provides statistical tests of the resulting hypotheses.

An equity-linked life insurance policy with an asset value guarantee (ELPAVG) is an insurance policy whose benefit payable on death or at maturity consists of the greater of some guaranteed amount and the value of a reference portfolio which is defined by the deemed investment of a predetermined component of the policy premium in a portfolio of common stocks or mutual fund–the reference fund. In an earlier paper we demonstrated that the benefit payable under an ELPAVG could be decomposed into the known guaranteed amount and an immediately exercisable call option to purchase the reference portfolio for an exercise price equal to the guaranteed amount. The principles of the option pricing model were then employed to derive the equilibrium premium for both a single premium ELPAVG contract and a periodic premium contract. It was further noted that the hedging arguments, which are the core of most of the recent theory of option pricing, could be employed to derive an investment strategy for the insurance company which would eliminate the risks associated with the sale of ELPAVGs: this is an important result, for ELPAVGs may pose a significant threat to the solvency of insurance companies since the risks of loss under different contracts are not independent, but are commonly related to the overall performance of the reference fund. Actuaries have responded to this threat by attempting to determine a level of reserves sufficient to reduce the probability of ruin to an acceptable level. On the other hand, adoption of the riskless investment strategy in theory eliminates the need to hold any reserves except against mortality risk.

Random stock returns result from irregular vibrations of a share's price through time. Divide any arbitrary time interval into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets. One set contains time periods when trading is formally open on an organized market such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Its complement contains closed trading time periods, i.e., when the NYSE is not open. Conventional theory assumes that the same return process operates over all periods in both sets. No allowance is made for possible differences in the return sequence between sets or among time periods within each set. There are reasons to assume that such differences may exist. For example, during a trading day, stock prices fluctuate as orders are executed. During nights, weekends, holidays, and holiday-weekends there are no transactions, but a share's value from close to open on the next trading day may still change to reflect revised expectations about a firm's productivity. In fact, capital changes and important news items are usually announced after the stock exchanges close.

This paper generalizes the past signaling literature from one variable to many. Multivariate models have been studied in the general rational expectations literature (e.g., Allen [1], Kraus and Sick [3]), but this appears to be the first multivariate signaling application. (Here, I distinguish signaling from rational expectations literature by the fact that agents may attempt to promulgate, suppress, or add noise to signals.) Talmor studies signaling models which are fully revealing (i.e., for which, in equilibrium, the values of the signaled parameters are correct).

There appears to be growing interest in the development and estimation of simultaneous equation models for finance. Simkowitz and Jones [11] stimulated much of this concern in their observations on the need for these structures. Moreover, Simkowitz's application to the modeling of security returns with Logue [12] provides some support for these suggestions. Recently Lloyd [6] has argued that there may be significant problems in using two-stage least squares (hereafter 2SLS) with such models as a result of the potential for contemporaneous correlation in the structural errors across equations. The purpose of this note is to question several of Lloyd's conclusions and to provide some evidence that his findings may not be representative for the broad array of simultaneous models applicable to financial problems.

The classical Capital Asset Pricing Model of Sharpe [5] and Lintner [4] has been generalized by Brennan [2, 3] to include the effect of investors' taxes. In Brennan's formulation, investors' portfolio incomes are divided into capital gains and ordinary income components whose marginal tax rates differ both from one another and across investors. In this paper, Brennan's model is further generalized to admit tax–exempt portfolio income as well. The results, which may accord with empirical data better than have those of the less general models, include a three–fund separation theorem, a three–term Capital Asset Pricing Formula which relates the excess rate of return of any risky portfolio to those of three fundamental risky portfolios whose rates of return are pairwise uncorrelated, and a representation suitable for empirical testing.

The need for an empirical measure of the relative value of financial theories becomes more important as we increase their number and sophistication. Although there are several methods of determining value, here we emphasize relative predictive power. According to this single criterion, a theory is insignificant if it fails to increase our present ability to predict future events. We recognize, however, that a theory can be useful if it merely increases our understanding of real events, or if it is based upon realistic assumptions.

In the June 1978 issue of this Journal, Herbst [2, p. 363] cautioned the reader to beware of a unique, real internal rate of return (IRR) because such a return is “an incorrect measure of the return on investment” for a mixed project. While it is true, as discussed by Teichroew, Robichek and Montalbano (TRM) [4], and now by Herbst, that a mixed project may have a unique IRR, several additional observations developed by TRM should be added to Herbst's discussion. These comments will clarify the implications of Herbst's paper for a decision maker who has a mixed project with a unique real IRR.

This paper demonstrates that refunding discounted debt represents a form of tax arbitrage that is profitable to taxpaying corporations when the present value of the additional tax shields, created through the refunding, exceeds the sum of the present value of the overall increase in pre-tax debt service requirements, after-tax transaction costs, and any tax incurred on the gain. The paper contrasts the factors that give rise to profitable opportunities to refund high-coupon debt and discounted debt. It also shows that, of the analytical approaches previously suggested for calculating the net advantage of refunding discounted debt, discounting the change in after-tax debt service payments at the after-tax cost of money for the refunding issue is the only one consistent with preserving debt service parity.

Recent research on blockholders focuses on activist hedge funds and documents positive stock but negative bond returns. This study investigates the role of blockholder heterogeneity on security market effects and target firm follow-on activities across three important dimensions: identity, motive, and purchasing method. We show that target firms’ security returns and post-acquisition activities strongly correlate with blockholder heterogeneity. Further, bond returns are significantly positive for firms with blockholders’ debt-assistance motive while both stock and bond returns are significantly negative in private placements. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of blockholder heterogeneity on the valuation and performance consequences in block acquisitions.

This paper investigates the relationship between interest-rate risk and liquidity premiums on U.S. Treasury bills. Interest-rate risk stems from uncertainty about the future general level of market interest rates.

In this paper the results of some new structural estimates of liquidity preference may be found. The justification for presenting them is that they differ from earlier estimates in certain ways. In some cases, the implications of these estimates differ sharply from the implications drawn by other observers on the basis of their estimates.

The dividend decision is a residual corporate decision and yet it is not a residual corporate decision. This theme runs through Professor Higgins' paper. It is based on the one hand on Higgins' belief that other decisions are more important and should take precedence over the dividend decision, and on the other, that the dividend decision is a function of these more important decisions. If dividends were truly residual, they would be explained by the corporate budget identity. In the empirical analysis, however, dividends are a function of other balance sheet decisions. In this sense the decision is neither active nor residual but passive. The reader wonders why the author insists on this role for dividends when interdependency in decision making is the more appealing (and inevitable) framework.

We develop a dynamic model of corporate investment and financing, in which shocks to the value of collateralizable assets generate variation in firms’ debt capacity. We show that the degree of similarity among firms’ financial flexibility forecasts cross-sectional variation in return correlation. We test the implications of the model with firm-level data in two empirical analyses using i) an instrumental variable approach based on shocks to the value of collateralizable corporate assets and ii) the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis as an event study. We find that firms in the same percentile of the cross-sectional distribution of financial flexibility have 62% higher correlation in stock-return residuals than firms 50 percentiles apart.

Consistent with the empirical properties of the consumption data, I develop a model in which consumption and dividend growth follow regime-switching dynamics. I show that regime-shift risk is priced in the model. Regime-shift risk exhibits dominant influence on asset prices: It generates a high equity premium and also induces time-varying risk premiums. The model explains major business cycle-dependent asset market phenomena and, in particular, the stronger predictability of stock returns during recessions.

Using U.S. census survey data on CEOs’ residence in their formative years, I document a negative relation between CEOs’ endowed family wealth and managerial performance. Consistent with the view that CEOs born into low-income families face higher entry barriers but may possess greater levels of ability that enable them to become CEOs, I find that CEOs born into less privileged families outperform those from higher-wealth families. The outperformance of CEOs from less wealthy families is not driven by risk taking or omitted variables. Overall, my results suggest that CEOs’ social endowment provides a useful signal for their managerial ability.