The purpose of the study is to empirically determine the relevance of PPP theory under the traditional arbitrage and the efficient markets (EPPP) frameworks during the recent floating period of the 1980s. Monthly data was collected for fifteen industrial nations from January 1980 to December 1986. The models tested included the short-run PPP, the long-run PPP, the EPPP, the EPPP with deviations from expectations, the forward rates as unbiased estimators of future spot rates, the EPPP and the forward rates, and the EPPP with forward rates and lagged values. A generalized regression method called Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) was employed to test the models. The results support the efficient markets approach to PPP but fail to support the traditional PPP in both the short term and the long term. Moreover, the forward rates are poor and biased predictors of the future spot rates. The random walk hypothesis is generally supported.

The effect of a change in capital structure on the risk and return of common stockholders is investigated. Also, the information content of dividends when a firm goes for new outside financing is examined. Data used in the study are collected from the Moody's Bond Survey, the Prentice Hall's Capital Adjustments, the Wall Street Journal Index, and the Center for Research in Security Prices Tape. The study uses an event study methodology. The risk (beta) of common stock before an issuance of debt securities is compared with the risk after the issue. The stock market reaction to the issuance of new debt securities is measured using after-the-event risk. The information content of dividend announcement before a new debt issue is compared to that of after the issue. The findings show that debt issue reduces stock holders' risk if the issuer is a dividend paying company. Also, debt securities issued through an exchange offer increase stockholders' wealth. Finally, issuance of new debt does not affect the information content of dividends.

The observed use (and indeed tremendous growth in volume) of forward contracts, futures, options, and swaps as hedges against interest rate risk, foreign exchange risk, and commodity price risk indicates that hedging does add value to the firm. The purpose this research was to empirically examine the value of off-balance-sheet hedging. The benefits of off-balance-sheet hedging were found to accrue from reducing (1) taxes, (2) expected financial distress costs, and (3) agency costs. Taxes. Hedging reduces the firm's tax liability by reducing the variability in taxable income. The value of hedging to the firm is a positive function of the convexity of the tax function and the variability of taxable income. Expected Financial Distress Costs. The value of hedging is a positive function of the degree to which hedging reduces the probability of financial distress and the costs of financial distress. Agency Cost. Due to the fact that bondholders and some managers hold fixed claims while shareholders hold variable claims, shareholders desire more risky projects than do bondholders or managers. Hedging reduces this conflict by allowing shareholders to undertake higher risk projects while protecting the holders of fixed claims. Firms can achieve the same benefits of hedging by using alternative …

Monthly returns on twenty-seven Eurobonds from July 1982 to June 1986 were examined. There were no consistent differences in returns based on the country in which a firm is located. There were consistent differences due to industry classification, with energy-related firms exhibiting higher average returns and variances. Excess returns were calculated using the capital asset pricing model and arbitrage pricing theory. The results from calculation of mean average deviation, root mean square, and R2 all indicate that the arbitrage pricing theory was a better descriptor of the Eurobond market. The excess returns were also examined using stochastic dominance. Arbitrage pricing theory never dominated the capital asset pricing model using first-order criteria, but consistently dominated using second-order criteria. The results were discussed in terms of the implications for investors and portfolio managers.