“You Can Enter but You Cannot Leave…”: U.S. Securities Markets and Foreign Firms

Although a number of prior papers have argued the benefits to foreign firms of cross‐listing their shares in the U.S., the number of foreign firms exiting U.S. capital markets has been increasing. This has occurred despite the difficulties foreign firms face in deregistering from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This paper examines the reasons underlying this trend. One of our main findings is that the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act has reduced the net benefits of a U.S. listing and registration, particularly for smaller foreign firms with lower trading volume and stronger insider control.     

The “Vision for Space Exploration” of President George W. Bush, space science, and U.S. space policy

On January 14, 2004 President George W. Bush announced a major overhaul of U.S. space exploration strategy and infrastructure, stipulating that NASA complete the International Space Station (ISS) and retire the Space Shuttle fleet by 2010, develop a new suite of launch and exploration vehicles for deployment shortly thereafter, and embark on a program of human exploration of the solar system with crewed landings on the moon by 2020 and, eventually, Mars. The “Vision for Space Exploration” would be funded by resources liberated by the end of the International Space Station construction and the Shuttle program, assuming a very modestly increasing NASA budget. While this decision marks a decisive attempt to grapple with longstanding issues concerning the Space Shuttle and station, it has stimulated both optimism and fear within the space community. There is skepticism about its intent, its feasibility, and concern for the effects on various areas of space science and technology. This decision is similar to other, major such initiatives in the history of NASA and space flight, relies on longstanding scenarios and models, and much of its content has been proposed unsuccessfully in the past.     

Does divestiture crowd out new investment? The “make or buy” decision in the U.S. electricity generation industry

An empirical model of the “make or buy” decision faced by independent power producers (IPPs)in restructured U.S. wholesale electricity markets is derived to analyze power plant investment decisions by major IPPs from 1996 to 2000. The estimated investment cost and expected profit functions are used to evaluate the effectiveness of divestiture programs (which sold utility power plants to IPPs)in encouraging greater IPP participation. The estimates and counterfactual simulations indicate that a minimal amount of new plant investments were “crowded out” by divestiture and that divestiture encouraged greater (short‐run)entry, especially among utility‐affiliated IPPs.     

The Effects of Monetary Policy “News” and “Surprises”

There is substantial agreement in the monetary policy literature over the effects of exogenous monetary policy shocks. The shocks that are investigated, however, almost exclusively represent unanticipated changes in policy, which surprise the private sector and which are typically found to have a delayed and sluggish effect on output. In this paper, we estimate a New Keynesian model that incorporates news about future policies to try to disentangle the anticipated and unanticipated components of policy shocks. The paper shows that the conventional estimates confound two distinct effects on output: an effect due to unanticipated or “surprise” shocks, which is smaller and more short‐lived than the response usually obtained in the literature, and a large, delayed, and persistent effect due to anticipated policy shocks or “news.” News shocks play a larger role in influencing the business cycle than unanticipated policy shocks, although the overall fraction of economic fluctuations that can be attributed to monetary policy remains limited.     

Discussion of “Information and Liquidity”

I discuss the model of asset liquidity by Lester, Postlewaite, and Wright (2011, this issue, Forthcoming) . I consider a model with bilateral matching and bargaining in which a perfectly divisible asset serves as means of payment. A recognizability problem is introduced by assuming that the asset can be counterfeited at a positive cost. In contrast to Lester, Postlewaite, and Wright , in equilibrium sellers always accept objects that they do not recognize. The private information problem manifests itself by smaller quantities traded in uninformed matches.     

Disclosure “Bunching”

This paper studies managers' preferences among information acquisition and disclosure policies when their firms are required to engage in “real‐time” or “continuous” financial reporting. The paper predicts that for many, but not all, processes describing the distribution of their firms' cash flows, when subject to such reporting requirements, managers will engage in disclosure “bunching,” that is, they will bunch the discretionary component of the information they acquire and disclose into a single point in time rather than spread the acquisition and disclosure of that information over time. We show that managers' preferred bunching period depends on managers' strategy for trading in their firms' shares, managers' risk aversion, the risk premium the capital market attaches to firms' shares, and the size of managers' initial ownership stakes in their firms. We also study and characterize how the equilibrium prices of firms' shares vary over time and also how managers' optimal trading strategies vary with their most preferred “bunching” strategies. Several extensions confirm the robustness of the optimality of disclosure “bunching.”     

Skinner's “Interpretation Panel”— A Means to Balance “Power”

The rules versus principles debate and the vital importance of context ‐ the circumstances‐specific nature of judgment ‐ are at the heart of Ross Skinner's suggestion for an “interpretation panel". International considerations and developments involving governance and regulation have created imbalances in power, expertise, and impartiality, increasing the importance of and need for such a panel. This analysis considers the nature of the problem, how professional judgment has been characterized, and why a panel would be appropriate to address, among other concerns, the audit committee's dilemma when accounting disputes arise. Evidence is provided that management turnover is higher in cases involving multiple restatements, governance problems, or regulators' sanctions. Although, intuitively, management turnover is likely to be associated with widely publicized restatements, some patterns suggest that it is a function of entity size, scope of management changes considered, and the manner in which the restatement was identified. Specifically, an identifiable source of discovery, as well as external involvement, is associated with a greater propensity for management change. In contrast, restatements linked to changes in available guidance from regulators are less likely to result in such turnover. One implication is that effective control design and monitoring to facilitate internal discovery of errors can decrease the likelihood of multiple restatements and reduce fault finding that leads to management change. The judgmental nature of restatements suggests that an infrastructure supporting “right‐mindedness” does have merit. An interpretation panel would increase the feasibility of principles‐based standards, facilitating timely resolution of accounting‐associated disputes and thereby enhancing the information environment underlying the allocation of capital.     

Subsidizing research programs with “if” and “when” uncertainty in the face of severe informational constraints

We study subsidy policies for research programs when firms have private information about the likelihood of project viability, but the government cannot form a unique prior about this likelihood. When the shadow cost of public funds is zero, first‐best welfare can be attained as a (belief‐free) ex post equilibrium under both monopoly and competition, but it cannot be attained when the shadow cost is positive. However, max‐min subsidy policies exist under monopoly and competition and consist of pure matching subsidies. Under a Research and Development (R&D) consortium, the highest max‐min matching rate is lower than under competition, and R&D investment intensity is higher.