In recent articles, Myers, Dill, and Bautista [15] (MDB) and Franks and Hodges [7] (FH) provide valuable contributions to the leasing literature. MDB derive a simple formula for lease valuation in a Modigliani-Miller world with corporate taxes. The paper by FH presents a simpler derivation of the same formula. FH also extend MDB's analysis to consider the empirically significant case of a lessee company currently in a non-tax-paying position, but which expects to resume paying taxes at some (specified) future date. The work of FH is important here in laying bare the economics of leasing. Temporary non-tax-paying lessees joining tax-paying lessors in non-zero-sum contracts; however, their paper leaves the problem as a programming application. This paper explores the difference equations underlying the MDB-FH approach for finding the adjusted present value of the lease contract. It is found that the order of the system of difference equations depends on the treatment of taxation complexities. Also described is a simple procedure for solving these higher-order difference equations to find the appropriate adjusted discount rates to use in MDB's lease valuation formula, extending its application to these more complex tax situations. The paper is set out in six sections.

This paper develops an approximate analytical solution to a two state-variable model of the term structure similar to the one proposed by Brennan and Schwartz. Unlike the BS model, which was based on the consol rate and the short rate of interest, our model is based on the consol rate and the spread (i.e., the difference) between the consol rate and the short rate. This change, merely a redefinition of variables, is made to exploit an assumption, for which there is substantial empirical evidence, that these two variables (the consol rate and the spread) are orthogonal. Employing orthogonal state variables provides the key simplification in providing an approximate solution to the fundamental valuation equation.

Since Bowlin's [4] original article on the topic was published, a considerable literature on corporate bond refunding has developed. Most of that literature has concentrated on the question of how to measure the benefit to a company's shareholders of exercising the call provision associated with an outstanding debt issue (see [3], [12], [21], [26], [27], [29], and [31]). Among the related concerns have been the matters of whether there are valuation advantages to the deliberate issuance of discount—including “zero coupon”—bonds (see [9], [22], and [28]), and whether there can be profitable opportunities for refunding prior to maturity debt instruments that were issued at par but later trade at a discount (see [1], [2], [13], [15], [17], [18], and [23]).

The capital asset pricing model of Sharpe [39], Lintner [28], and Mossin [33] has been the basis for many theoretical and empirical studies in capital markets. One criticism of the model hasbeen directed at the assumption that investors optimize in a one-period framework. Fama [7] and Merton [30] have shown that the results of this one-period optimization model are consistent with the results for an intertemporal optimization model if the investment opportunity set is constant over time. Specifically, the relevant parameters for the distributions of risky securities (i.e., conditional means and variances) must be constant over time. Merton has argued that this is a restrictive assumption, but there has been very little empirical evidence to suggest that changes in the investment opportunity set are significant.

Geske derived in [1] expressions for the values of junior and senior debt and equity. In this paper, some confusion about these expressions is cleared up, and an error is corrected. We use the same notation as in [1].

This paper reexamines the empirical relation between inflation and interest rates concentrating on the tax effect proposed by Darby and Feldstein. Using the random walk intercept model, relative responses of taxable yields and tax-exempt yields to expected inflation are estimated. The results show that for the sample period 1953–1982, the nominal yields on Treasury bills rise at a rate greater than one-for-one with expected inflation, while the nominal yields on default-free municipal bonds rise approximately one-for-one with expected inflation. Thus, the tax-adjusted Fisher hypothesis by Darby and Feldstein is empirically supported. The components of Treasury bills are also extracted and their variances are compared. It is shown that variation of expected inflation is not overwhelmingly larger than that of the after-tax real rate. Therefore, on an after-tax basis, changes in the real rate explain a substantial portion of changes in the nominal rate of interest.

Yitzhaki [19] recently developed two portfolio selection criteria (EG and EΓ) based on the mean and Gini's mean difference. Similar to mean-variance(EV), the EG criterion uses two summary statistics to describe the probability distribution of a risky prospect, the mean and one-half Gini's mean difference. Gini's mean difference is defined as the average of the absolute differences between all possible pairs of observations of a random variable. Yitzhaki's development concentrated on the theoretical aspects of EG and EΓ and the theoretical relationships among EG, EΓ, EV, and stochastic dominance (SD) selection criteria. He did not address either the empirical properties of EG and EΓ or the relationship between the empirical efficient sets of EG and EΓ and other portfolio selection criteria. Yitzhaki suggested that the next step in the development and application of his proposed selection criteria should be an empirical investigation of how the EG and EΓ criteria compare with other selection criteria.

In the standard setting in which an individual or firm has preferences for probabilistic monetary outcomes that satisfy the Neumann-Morgenstern [10] assumptions of “rational behavior” and has an exponential utility function for money, a popular index for evaluating any proposed single-period probabilistic project is its “risk-adjusted value” (RAV), i.e., its certainty equivalent, the certain amount of money that has the same utility as the expected utility for the project. Since the exponential function is completely characterized by just a single parameter, its risk aversion level, in comparing mutually exclusive projects one can simply plot their RAVs or their expected utilities as a function of this parameter and then, for any given value or range of values of the parameter, read off which project is best, i.e., has the highest RAV or, equivalently, the highest expected utility. (See, e.g., [7], p. 203 or [2].)

Studies of size and earnings/price ratio effects together have produced contradictory results. Does one effect subsume the other or are there two separate effects? This paper demonstrates that equity returns are related to both size and earnings/price ratio as well as the month of January. Reinganum [20] and Basu [4] are reexamined to find the reasons for their contradictory results. Reinganum's finding that size subsumes earnings/price ratio is caused by a fortuitous choice of methods. Basu's finding that earnings/price ratio subsumes size appears to be sample-specific.

This paper examines the implied standard deviation (ISD) estimated from transactions data on options, using the Black-Scholes pricing model. It was found that the distribution of the ISD is symmetric, though not normal. Also, the ISD based on the last daily observation deviates significantly from the daily average ISD. It is suggested that the daily average is a more reliable estimate of the standard deviation.

With the formation of a formal market for the trading of financial futures in October 1975, a renewed interest in the futures contract as an investment vehicle has emerged. The traditional approach was to view investing in futures as a way of off setting potential price risk associated with a given spot position. While these descriptive scenarios (see [3], [6], [10], [12], [13], [14], and [19]) adequately illustrate the traditional hedging strategy, their simplifying assumptions introduce a lack of realism into the investment process. The implication drawn from many of these articles is that, if one is interested in risk reduction, one should simply take the opposite position in the appropriate number of futures contracts to totally offset one's existing spot position.

This paper models the unobservable rate of return on money balances (r) as depending directly on the transactions velocity of money (ν). Approximating this relationship linearly, the efficient markets hyphothesis (EMH) is shown to imply that first differences of the log of ν should either be random or should show negative first-order serial correlation at most. The empirical evidence presented below is consistent with the EMH.

Pricing municipal debt is a process substantially different from the valuation of corporate liabilities. Municipalities are not seized upon default. Therefore, they might own additional assets that could he made available to retire debt even when the value of pledged revenues is insufficient to do so. However, if the value of the municipality's additional assets is only observable privately, moral hazard can deter payments from these alternative revenue sources. A second consequence of lack of seizure is that the municipality survives and might return to the capital markets to raise additional funds in the future. This opens an opportunity to induce “extraordinary” payments from the value of the additional assets through multiperiod pricing controls (e.g., by following defaults with poor pricing for subsequent securities issues).

The Standard Fixed Payment Mortgage (SFPM) has been the dominant mortgage instrument in the United States for the last 50 years, and for much of this period it has performed well. However, during periods of high and volatile rates of inflation, the SFPM suffers from severe weaknesses. Foremost among these problems, from the standpoint of the borrower, is the tilt in the stream of real mortgage payments toward the initial years of the mortgage. For consumers unconstrained by capital market imperfections, this tilt is unimportant. However, a consumer is typically unable to borrow against expected higher future income, or against the nominal capital gains that accrue to the owner of a house over the life of the mortgage. In addition, common practices of mortgage lenders often limit mortgage payments to some fraction of income at the time of purchase. Together, these liquidity constraints create a mismatch between the time sequence of mortgage payments and income, a mismatch that reduces the number of borrowers who qualify for financing and that limits the value of the house purchased by those who do obtain financing.