Jurisdictional homogeneity and the Tiebout hypothesis

In this paper, an alternative to the capitalization approach to testing the Tiebout model is presented. The Tiebout foot voting mechanism suggests that households will sort and stratify into (approximately) homogeneous local public goods jurisdictions. At a point in time, the efficiency of the sort will be positively related to the number of existing jurisdictions. Using a measure of homogeneity introduced by Theil, the relationship between stratification (homogeneity within jurisdiction) and number of jurisdictions is tested. For a sample of school districts within 33 SMSAs, the Tiebout stratification hypothesis is confirmed.     

STOCK DIVIDENDS AS SIGNALS

This study analyzes stock dividends as signals from managers. It is argued that in the presence of information asymmetries between managers and investors, stock dividends provide a relatively inexpensive and unambiguous signalling device. Based on an examination of the daily returns around 317 stock dividend announcements, it is concluded that these announcements are interpreted by investors as signals from managers. Further analysis also indicates that stock dividend size is positively related to announcement day returns.     

Is U.S. CEO Compensation Broken?

This article addresses four major concerns about the pay of U.S. CEOs: (1) failure to pay for performance; (2) excessive levels of pay; (3) failure to index options and other equity-based pay, resulting in windfalls; and (4) too much unwinding of incentives. The authors' main message is that most if not all of these concerns are exaggerated by the popular tendency to focus on the annual income of CEOs (consisting of salary, bonus, and stock and option grants) while ignoring their existing holdings of company equity.
Taking into account the effect of stock price changes on CEO wealth leads the authors to a number of interesting conclusions. First, the pay-for-performance relationship is strong and has grown significantly in recent years. Second, what may appear as above-normal growth in annual pay levels may be necessary to compensate CEOs for the increased risk associated with their growing level of equity-based incentives. Third, conventional (that is, unindexed) stock and options, when viewed as a combination of market risk and firm-specific risk, may provide an optimal solution to two conflicting demands: shareholders' demand for executive rewards tied to company performance and executives' preference to diversify their wealth. Finally, there is little evidence of widespread CEO unwinding of incentives, and levels of CEO equity ownership in the U.S. remain impressively high.     

RETHINKING BANK REGULATION: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The debate over bank powers has taken on special urgency with the recent flurry of proposed mergers, such as the Citicorp-Travelers Group combination, that would break down the barriers between commercial and investment banking. After more than a decade of failed attempts to expand the scope of permissible bank activities, the House of Representatives recently voted for the first time in favor of a bill to end these Depression era limitations. The issue will be taken up by the Senate this fall. Most of the rationales for regulating banks fall into two broad categories: (1) the need to control potential conflicts of interest stemming from banks' multiple roles as deposit-takers, lenders, securities underwriters, and investment advisers; and (2) the perceived need to protect against the possibility of bank panics and widespread financial instability. In reviewing the historical evidence compiled by banking and finance scholars over the years, this article finds remarkably little cause for concern and suggests the regulatory cure may be far worse than the disease. On the first issue, the article cites a number of recent studies suggesting that market forces deal more effectively than regulation with conflicts of interests that can arise when commercial banks are engaged in securities underwriting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, investors during the pre-Glass-Steagall era appear to have been better off when they purchased securities from commercial banks rather than investment banks. Moreover, to enhance their credibility in the market, many commercial banks during this period chose to put some distance between their lending and underwriting activities by establishing separate securities affiliates, thereby creating voluntary “firewalls.” In examining the issue of how the expansion of bank powers would affect economic stability, the second half of the article cites a large body of research–including studies of different historical periods and countries–attesting to the durability of commercial (and universal) banking systems. Indeed, one of the most important findings issuing from this research is that the regulatory safety net has often had the unfortunate impact of undermining rather than promoting financial stability.     

Does backdating explain the stock price pattern around executive stock option grants?

Extant studies show that stock returns are abnormally negative before executive option grants and abnormally positive afterward. We find that this return pattern is much weaker since August 29, 2002, when the Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that option grants must be reported within two business days took effect. Furthermore, in those cases in which grants are reported within one day of the grant date, the pattern has completely vanished, but it continues to exist for grants reported with longer lags, and its magnitude tends to increase with the reporting delay. We interpret these findings as evidence that most of the abnormal return pattern around option grants is attributable to backdating of option grant dates.     

ECONOMICS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REFORM

This paper develops three basic economic principles for effective corporate governance: (1) information accuracy and timeliness, (2) management accountability, and (3) auditor independence. Accuracy and timeliness of information is critical to providing market participants with the data necessary to monitor and evaluate managers. Management accountability focuses on strengthening the incentives of managers to act in shareholders' interests and on increasing the likelihood and magnitude of punishment for wrongdoing. Auditor independence reduces the incentives and likelihood that auditors would give managers more leeway to undertake fraudulent or questionable acts.
The author provides a preliminary assessment of how well legislative reforms, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, regulatory changes at the SEC, and private sector responses such as those from self-regulatory organizations like the NYSE and NASDAQ, conform to these economic principles. The paper concludes by commenting on current proposals from the SEC on "shareholder democracy" and emphasizing the importance of balancing private and public regulatory responses.