Learning to Wait: A Laboratory Investigation

Human subjects decide when to sink a fixed cost C to seize an irreversible investment opportunity whose value V is governed by Brownian motion. The optimal policy is to invest when V first crosses a threshold V * = (1 + w *) C , where the wait option premium w * depends on drift, volatility, and expiration hazard parameters. Subjects in the Low w * treatment on average invest at values quite close to optimum. Subjects in the two Medium and the High w * treatments invested at values below optimum, but with the predicted ordering, and values approached the optimum by the last block of 20 periods.     

The Theory of Capital Structure

This paper surveys capital structure theories based on agency costs, asymmetric information, product/input market interactions, and corporate control considerations (but excluding tax-based theories). For each type of model, a brief overview of the papers surveyed and their relation to each other is provided. The central papers are described in some detail, and their results are summarized and followed by a discussion of related extensions. Each section concludes with a summary of the main implications of the models surveyed in the section. Finally, these results are collected and compared to the available evidence. Suggestions for future research are provided.     

The Carry-Forward Provision and Management of Bank Reserves

The 1968 amendment to Regulation D of the Federal Reserve Code permits banks to carry forward one sequential reserve excess or deficiency into the next reserve accounting period. This was intended to reduce the weekly pressure on individual banks to adjust their reserve position. We find, instead, that the carry-forward provision gives individual banks an incentive to alternate weekly between reserve excesses and reserve deficiencies. Thus, the carry-forward provision tends to induce reserve position adjustments even in the absence of changes in the level of deposits. In addition, the carry-forward provision reduces the impact of interest-rate changes on the desired level of excess reserves.     

The Capital Budgeting Process: Incentives and Information

We study the capital allocation process within firms. Observed budgeting processes are explained as a response to decentralized information and incentive problems. It is shown that these imperfections can result in underinvestment when capital productivity is high and overinvestment when it is low. We also investigate how the budgeting process may be expected to vary with firm or division characteristics such as investment opportunities and the technology for information transfer.     

Lobbying and Uniform Disclosure Regulation

This study examines the costs and benefits of uniform accounting regulation in the presence of heterogeneous firms that can lobby the regulator. A commitment to uniform regulation reduces economic distortions caused by lobbying by creating a free‐rider problem between lobbying firms at the cost of forcing the same treatment on heterogeneous firms. Resolving this tradeoff, an institutional commitment to uniformity is socially desirable when firms are sufficiently homogeneous or the costs of lobbying to society are large. We show that the regulatory intensity for a given firm can be increasing or decreasing in the degree of uniformity, even though uniformity always reduces lobbying. Our analysis sheds light on the determinants of standard‐setting institutions and their effects on corporate governance and lobbying efforts.     

Moral Hazard in Lending and Labor Market Volatility

When the economy experiences a sharp economic downturn, credit spreads widen and project financing costs for firms rise as funding sources begin to dry up. The economy experiences a lengthy recovery, with unemployment rates slow to return to “full employment” levels. We develop a model that displays these features. It relies on an interaction between labor search frictions and firm‐level moral hazard that is accentuated during recessions. The model is capable of addressing the “Shimer puzzle,” with labor market variables exhibiting significantly more volatility on average as a result of the heightened moral hazard concerns during these episodes that significantly deepen and prolong periods of high unemployment, as vacancy postings fall dramatically and the job‐finding rate declines. Our mechanism is also found to induce internal shock propagation causing the peak response of output, unemployment, and wages to occur with a several quarter delay relative to a model without such frictions. Many other labor market variables also show slower recovery—their return to preshock level occurs at a slower pace for a number of periods after the peak response.