SEASONED EQUITY OFFERINGS: THE CASE OF ALL-EQUITY FIRMS

Three theories have been widely proposed to explain the significant negative market response to the announcement of a new equity issue. By observing a similar negative effect in a sample of zero and near zero long-term debt firms, we are able to conclude that the capital structure hypothesis is not the sole explanation. Regressions of announcement period abnormal returns against subsequent cashflow change while controlling for price pressure effects provide evidence in support of the information hypothesis. Decomposition of the sample by issue purpose reveals a differential impact at the time of announcement consistent with an information-based explanation.     

TIME-SERIES PROPERTIES OF THE EQUITY RISK PREMIUM

In this paper we use time-series models to investigate the presence of autoregression, random variation, and random walk movements of historic equity risk premiums. An autoregressive risk premium is found for 1926–58, but random variation around a much lower risk premium mean is found for 1959–90. This finding is not sensitive to holding-period length, the choice of the risk-free rate proxy, or January/July seasonal effects.     

GLOBAL EVIDENCE ON THE EQUITY RISK PREMIUM

The size of the equity risk premium—the incremental return that shareholders require to hold risky equities rather than risk-free securities—is a key issue in corporate finance. Financial economists generally measure the equity premium over long periods of time in order to obtain reliable estimates. These estimates are widely used by investors, finance professionals, corporate executives, regulators, lawyers, and consultants. But because the 20th century proved to be a period of such remarkable growth in the U.S. economy, estimates of the risk premium that rely on past market performance may be too high to serve as a reliable guide to the future.
The authors analyze a 103-year history of risk premiums in 16 countries and conclude that the U.S. risk premium relative to Treasury bills was 5.3% for that period—lower than previous studies suggest—as compared to 4.2% for the U.K. and 4.5% for a world index. But the article goes on to observe that the historical record may still overstate expectations of the future risk premium, partly because market volatility in the future may be lower than in the past, and partly because of a general decline in risk resulting from new technological advances and increased diversification opportunities for investors. After adjusting for the expected impact of these factors, the authors calculate forward-looking equity risk premiums of 4.3% for the U.S., 3.9% for the U.K., and 3.5% for the world index. At the same time, however, they caution that the risk premium can fluctuate over time and that managers should make appropriate adjustments when there are compelling economic reasons to think that expected premiums are unusually high or low.     

ESTIMATING THE EQUITY RISK PREMIUM AND EQUITY COSTS: NEW WAYS OF LOOKING AT OLD DATA

This article examines three alternative ways of estimating the expected return on the equity market in using the CAPM or some other risk premium model. The three techniques are (1) direct estimation of the average nominal equity return for use as a forecast nominal equity return; (2) estimation of the average real equity return, which can then be added to a forecast inflation rate; and (3) estimation of an average equity risk premium, which is then added to a current risk-free rate. Ibbotson and Sinquefeld's data on annual holding period returns are used to test the validity of their assumption that the equity risk premium follows a random walk and that the third of these approaches is thus the best method.
The paper reaches three major conclusions. First, each of these three techniques involves a bias of some kind. The use of average equity returns as a forecast is subject to risk-free rate and inflation rate biases, while the use of an average equity risk premium is subject to a term premium bias. As a result, only the data can tell us which approach is best. Second, from analyzing equity and bond return data and the trend in interest rates, the author concludes that the term premium bias when using average historic equity risk premium is by far the largest of the three sources of bias. Indeed, the popular practice of adding an historic average equity risk premium to the 30-year Treasury bond rate significantly overstates equity costs. Third, after examining equity rates of return back to 1871, the author concludes that the real equity return seems to follow a process that is close to a random walk and is thus the best of the three techniques to use as a naive forecast.     

FOREIGN-CURRENCY ACCOUNTING METHODS: REPORTING THE EXCHANGE RATE RISK EXPOSURE OF EQUITY

This study tests whether Australian firms' unregulated foreign-currency accounting policies indicated the extent to which equity claims against the firm were exposed to exchange rate risk. Evidence supports the hypothesis that the methods of accounting for foreign-currency gains and losses on long-term monetary-items were associated with the exposure. Methods of disposing of the gains and losses arising from translation of the accounts of overseas subsidiaries were also associated with the exposure, but not in the manner predicted. The results indicate that foreign-currency accounting policies were established in an interactive (portfolio) decision-making process, and that managers reported equity claim exposures relative to the returns to equity claims against other firms. Overall, the study provides evidence that at least some unregulated choices of foreign-currency accounting methods were made to minimise the agency costs associated with contracts between shareholders and management.     

HOW FIRMS MANAGE RISK: THE OPTIMAL MIX OF LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR DERIVATIVES

This paper provides guidance on how corporations should choose the optimal mix of "linear" and "non-linear" derivatives. Linear derivatives are products such as futures, forwards, and swaps, whose payoffs vary in linear fashion with changes in the un-derlying asset price or reference rate. Non-linear derivatives are contracts with option-like payoffs, including caps, floors, and swaptions.
A company's optimal hedging position should generally consist of linear contracts because of their effective-ness in smoothing corporate cash flows. But as the firm's business (quantity) risk increases, its use of linear contracts will decline due to costs associated with overhedging. At the same time, there will be a shift towards the use of non-linear contracts. The degree of substitution of non-linear for linear in-struments will depend on the relation-ship between the quantities to be hedged and market prices. A negative relationship will tend to exacerbate the substitution effect while a positive re-lationship will dampen the effect. An empirical examination of corporate derivative holdings provides support for all of the major hypotheses.     

RISK AND HEDGING BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE AND DETERMINANTS OF LATENT HETEROGENEITY

The notion of heterogeneous behavior is well grounded in economic theory. Recently it has been shown in a hedging context that the influence of risk attitudes and risk perceptions varies for different segments using a generalized mixture regression model. Here, using recently developed individual risk attitude measurement techniques and experimental and accounting data from investors with differing decision environments, we examine the determinants of heterogeneity in hedging behavior in a concomitant mixture regression framework. Allowing for latent heterogeneity, we find that risk attitudes and risk perceptions do not influence behavior uniformly and that the heterogeneity is influenced by manager's focus on shareholder value and the firm's capital structure.