The purposes of this article are two. Some extensions to Mayers’ [1] classical work on portfolio building in the presence of nonmarketable assets are presented. In addition the implications of certain simple forms of taxation and redistribution are investigated.

One of the remarkable features of the mean-variance capital asset pricing model is its robustness with respect to changes in assumption (Jensen [1]). An example of this property is given by David Mayers [4], who shows that the structure of prices of marketable assets is unaffected by relaxing the assumption that all risky assets are marketable. The result has been used in the analysis of public sector investments by Stapleton and Subrahmanyam [6]. However, although relative prices are unaffected, the general level may be due to the effect of marketability on the market price of risk.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the financing and investment policies for the multinational firm in the framework of international capital market equilibrium. The analysis incorporates foreign exchange rate fluctuations, differential international interest rates, and differential international taxes. The current valuation theories do not contain realistic treatment of these characteristics of the international financial environment. Therefore, the existing financial theory has to be amply modified if it has to accommodate multinational corporations. Nonetheless, the few notable works in contemporary financial economics, which seek to extend the theory into the international setting, are subject to significant limitations.

What I have attempted to do in this paper and a companion paper [1] on dividend-signaling is to delineate two “polar cases” of signaling in which firms either can or cannot (at all) directly communicate the ex-post profitability of their business without moral hazard. In this paper, we assume that they can, and signaling through dividends or earnings forecasts “merely” serves to bring forward the timing of communication of insiders' expectation of profitability to the outside market. The model is “nondissipative” because the incentivestructure that leads to self-selection using the signal is based on market value revisions which are themselves based on the discrepancy between the signal and the ex-post indicator, not on any exogenous or “third party” costs, unlike the model in the companion paper [1].

In his 1976 Presidential Address to the American Finance Association, Merton Miller provided a compelling argument that there currently exists no viable theory of the optimal capital structure of an individual firm. This argument follows from the critique he presented of existing models of capital structure and from the theory he outlined of the optimal aggregate capital structure of the economy as a whole. That theory depends on the existence of different marginal tax rates for individuals and a tax-free security. Professor Miller pointed out that he was motivated to develop his hypothesis by the apparent inadequacy of a (if not the most) popular explanation for capital structure at both the micro and the aggregate level: the tradeoff between the tax advantages of debt and the cost to the firm's security holders of the bankruptcy process. He observed that neither the tax advantage of debt nor the costs of bankruptcy may be quite what they seem at first glance. When the corporate income tax and the differential taxation of regular income and capital gains are taken into account, then the tax advantage of debt is reduced. Moreover, the limited empirical evidence from actual bankruptcies suggests that the real costs to security holders of bankruptcy may be really rather low. And the recent discussion by Haugen and Senbet [6] suggests that most of the costs attributed to bankruptcy are really costs of liquidation of the firm's assets and not relevant to the capital structure decision.

This paper presents a new explanation for the use of debt financing, particularly private debt, in addition to equity without relying on the existence of taxes or bankruptcy costs. The paper assumes that information about returns on investment projects is costly and subject to efficient specialization, so that managers of firms develop inside information not possessed by the market. Suppose the manager of a firm possesses such inside information about a new investment project and his objective is to act in the best interests of existing equity owners. If the information can be disclosed to the market without impairing the value of the project, he will do so. However, much information will be of a strategic nature where the value of the project depends upon confidentiality. Public financing of such projects without disclosing the information will mean that the excess value or surprise monopoly profits in the new project will be split between new and old owners.

Trading in currencies in order to obtain the best possible exchange rate is known as arbitrage and can broadly be divided into three categories:

1) Space Arbitrage––transactions to take advantage of discrepancies between rates quoted at the same time in different markets.

2) Time Arbitrage––transactions to take advantage of discrepancies between forward margins for different maturities.

3) Interest Arbitrage––transactions to take advantage of discrepancies between yield on short-term investments in different currencies. This form of arbitrage can be split into (a) Covered and (b) Uncovered (speculative) interest arbitrage. The former variety uses today's forward rate for forward conversion back into our holding currency; the latter allows the dealer to use the spot rate existing in the future.

Throughout the finance and economics literature, it is widely recognized that taxation can significantly alter individual behavior and market equilibrium conditions. Yet, in the area of bonds, the impacts of taxation upon bond pricing have generally been ignored. The primary purpose of this paper is to trace out the impact of differential taxation of regular income and capital gains upon the pricing of coupon-bearing bonds.

The assumption that investors can borrow and lend at a riskless interest rate reduces the Mean-Variance (M-V) efficient set to only one optimal unlevered portfolio. However, once we realize that the market is generally imperfect and that the borrowing rate is higher than the lending rate, we can no longer use the mean-variance Separation Theorem. Instead, a number of unlevered portfolios must be included in the efficient set, while the optimal unlevered portfolio is selected on the basis of the investor's preference. The size of the efficient set of unlevered portfolios is a function of the type of empirical data used and of the disparity between the borrowing and lending interest rates.

In this study, alternative real and simulated market indexes are examined as proxies for the “common factor” required by the Sharpe portfolio selection model [13]. The ex post performance of efficient and well-diversified portfolios generated by the model based on the different indexes is compared. The results indicate no significant difference in performance between real and simulated indexes, although the degree of diversification is much lower for portfolios based on indexes which relate well to the universe of securities. It is also shown that portfolios which are selected according to the Sharpe model (regardless of the index) outperform strategies which call for investing in the market portfolio.

The operation and characteristics of the American securities markets have long been major preoccupations of financial research, especially during the last decade. Particular attention has been devoted to the question of whether there exist investment strategies, or investing entities, capable of producing consistently superior investment performance. The general consensus to date is that few, if any, such success stories are observable. Examinations of the value of professional investment research and counsel ([7] [8] [9] [24]), of the payoff from technical trading rules ([11] [13] [18] [20] [26] [34]), and of the investment results of institutional money management ([15] [29] [25] [28]) have, in almost every instance, provided little indication of performance better than that attainable from a simple passive strategy of buying and holding a randomly selected, well-diversified portfolio of securities, after appropriate adjustments for portfolio risk levels are taken into account. The intensive competition in, and rapid information-digesting properties of, the capital market environment have been cited as explanations ([2] [5] [12]).

The phenomenal growth in corporate merger activity of the 1960s revived interest in the motives and effects relating to corporate mergers. In recent years, many theories for explaining mergers have been discussed and tested in the literature of finance, law, and economics. Various authors have argued that motives for merger include increased market power [15, 21, 23], achievement of operating or managerial scale economies [2, 8], diversification [6], tax reduction [19], growth maximization [14, 16], and bankruptcy avoidance [7, 10, 12, 13]. The bankruptcy avoidance motive is perhaps the most recently articulated of all merger motives, and perhaps the only one for which no systematic attempts at empirical validation have been forthcoming.

The existence of risk aversion in portfolio theory can be explained by positing a concave utility function of wealth. In some cases it is useful to construct some measure of risk aversion rather than merely accept its existence.

The two related problems of agency and informational asymmetry have received increasing attention in finance. In particular, prominent authors in this area (e.g., Jensen and Meckling [7], Ross [15, 16], Leland and Pyle [10], etc.) have demonstrably argued that the financial structure of the firm can be determined in the process of eliminating, or at least reducing, the costs associated with these problems.

The existence of seasonality in security rates of return has implications for both the study of market efficiency and tests involving return models. The existence of seasonal asset returns may be an indicator of market inefficiencies. In an efficient market, investor arbitrage should remove any excess seasonal return an asset receives over a comparable asset of equal risk. The presence of seasonal returns, however, does not necessitate market inefficiency. For example, an expected seasonal return may exist in an efficient market simply because of anticipated seasonal patterns embedded in its underlying determinants. Tax regulations, government monetary policy, seasonal information lags, or risk adjustments have all been advanced as determinants of seasonal movements in return. No matter what the basis for return seasonality or the extent of market efficiency, if seasonality in asset returns exists, then these returns do not follow a strict stationary process within the year. Statistical models analyzing asset returns may use this information to improve model specification. For instance, Kinney and Rozeff [16] have shown that large efficiency gains in estimating portfolio betas can be achieved using time stratified estimates which explicitly incorporate seasonality in 4 stock returns.

The solution to the problem of portfolio choice is relevant in a positive financial economics context because it provides models of individual maximizing behavior which when aggregated to the level of the market provide models of equilibrium asset pricing. These models generally assume that the parameters of the probability distribution of security returns are known to individual investors. In practice, however, the individual has to estimate these parameters. To the extent that there is parameter uncertainty or “estimation risk”, what are the observable implications of a market equilibrium derived on the assumption that the information set of all investors is equivalent to a given set of sample data?

Much of the current work in the analysis of security returns has been directed towards improving the specification of the Sharpe diagonal capital market model [9]. Because the residuals from the market model for different securities are observed to be correlated, some factor or factors are assumed to be common to large groups of stocks exclusive of the economy-wide influences captured by the market index. King [6], for example, found industry effects to be a significant determinant of security returns. In recent articles in this journal and elsewhere Lee and Lloyd, hereafter (L&L) ([7] [8]) attempt to capture the interaction of firms within an industry. They propose a recursive capital market model, an approach which is attractive because it allows for interaction in the determination of stock prices without the complications of a more fully simultaneous equations model (Simkowitz and Logue [10]). However, the L&L application of the recursive system is not without problems in both theory and application.

In a dynamic economy with a sequence of markets over time, there are generally goods or securities that will be traded in the future at currently unknown prices. Individuals require some notion of what these future prices will be since knowledge of future investment opportunity sets is relevant when making current portfolio allocation decisions.

In a recent paper, the author [8] has derived the equilibrium bond pricing equation in a world of uncertain future interest rates assuming that capital gains and losses will be taxed at maturity at capital gains tax rates. In the case of premium bonds (i.e., bonds selling above par), the U.S. tax law allows bondholders to elect to amortize the premium on a straight line basis as a deduction from regular taxable income. For those paying positive tax rates, the amortization option will generally be advantageous compared to taking a capital loss at maturity.

The relationship between the rate of inflation and the interest rate has been a topic of research for quite some time. A breakthrough in the analysis occurred years ago with Irving Fisher's hypothesis that the nominal interest rate fully reflects the available information concerning the possible future values of the rate of inflation. Others have extended Fisher's original insight to explain further the interaction between the rate of interest and inflation. For example, Mundell [26] uses the Pigou real-balance effect to hypothesize that the real rate of interest is inversely related to the rate of inflation.