Collective Choice and Control Rights in Firms

Recent writers have asserted that firms controlled by workers are rare because workers have diverse preferences over firm policies, while investors all support wealth maximization. However, the source of the asymmetry between capital and labor remains unclear. We resolve this puzzle by arguing that because financial capital is exceptionally mobile, capital markets induce unanimity. The lower mobility of human capital implies that labor markets are monopolistically competitive and hence that unanimity cannot be expected in labor‐managed firms. Moreover, such firms are vulnerable to takeover by investors, while capital‐managed firms are substantially less vulnerable to takeover by workers.     

The Market Impact of Trends and Sequences in Performance: New Evidence

Bloomfield and Hales (2002) find strong evidence that experimental market subjects are influenced by trends and patterns in a manner supportive of the shifting regimes model of Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998) . We subject the model to further empirical scrutiny using the football wagering market as our price laboratory. Sports betting markets have several advantages over traditional capital markets as an empirical setting, and commonalities with traditional markets allow for useful insights. We find scant evidence that investors behave in accordance with the model.     

A Test for the Number of Factors in an Approximate Factor Model

An important issue in applications of multifactor models of asset returns is the appropriate number of factors. Most extant tests for the number of factors are valid only for strict factor models, in which diversifiable returns are uncorrelated across assets. In this paper we develop a test statistic to determine the number of factors in an approximate factor model of asset returns, which does not require that diversifiable components of returns be uncorrelated across assets. We find evidence for one to six pervasive factors in the cross-section of New York Stock Exchange and American Stock Exchange stock returns.     

The Impact of Federal Interest Rate Regulations on the Small Saver: Further Evidence

This paper provides further evidence on the distributional impact of interest rate ceilings on the small saver. Cross-section data from the 1977 Consumer Credit Survey was used to estimate the implicit losses imposed on different income classes by government regulations. Our findings generally support earlier studies which found the implicit burden to be regressive among income classes. However, the degree of regressivity showed a marked decrease since 1970. These results may be explained by portfolio adjustments of households and financial innovations in response to deposit rate ceilings and accelerating inflation during the 1970s.     

Unequal Longevities and Lifestyles Transmission

Whereas studies on the optimal taxation under endogenous longevity assume a fixed heterogeneity of lifestyles, this paper analyses the optimal tax policy in an economy where unequal longevities are the unintended outcome of differences in lifestyles, and where lifestyles are transmitted across generations. For that purpose, we develop a three-period OLG model where the population, who ignores the negative impact of excessive work on longevity, is partitioned in two groups with different tastes for leisure, and follows an adaptation/imitation process  à la   Bisin and Verdier (2001) . The optimal short- and long-run Pigouvian taxes on wages are shown to differ, because the latter correct agents' myopia, but also internalize intergenerational externalities due to the socialization process. The internalization of composition effects raises the Pigouvian tax on the wage of one type of agents, but reduces it on the other type, in such a way as to induce the optimal long-run partition of the population.     

Effect of Analysts' Optimism on Estimates of the Expected Rate of Return Implied by Earnings Forecasts

Recent literature has used analysts' earnings forecasts, which are known to be optimistic, to estimate implied expected rates of return, yielding upwardly biased estimates. We estimate that the bias, computed as the difference between the estimates of the implied expected rate of return based on analysts' earnings forecasts and estimates based on current earnings realizations, is 2.84%. The importance of this bias is illustrated by the fact that several extant studies estimate an equity premium in the vicinity of 3%, which would be eliminated by the removal of the bias. We illustrate the point that cross‐sample differences in the bias may lead to the erroneous conclusion that cost of capital differs across these samples by showing that analysts' optimism, and hence, bias in the implied estimates of the expected rate of return, differs with firm size and with analysts' recommendation. As an important aside, we show that the bias in a value‐weighted estimate of the implied equity premium is 1.60% and that the unbiased value‐weighted estimate of this premium is 4.43%.