Since Engle and Granger formulated the concept of cointegration in 1987, the literature has extensively examined the unbiasedness of the commodity futures prices using the cointegration-based technique. Despite intense attention, many of the previous studies suffer from the contradicting empirical results. That is, the cointegration test and the stationarity test on the differential contradict each other. In marked contrast, my dissertation develops the no-arbitrage cost-of-carry model in the NYMEX light sweet crude oil futures market and tests stationarity of the spot-futures differential. It is demonstrated that the primary cause of the "cointegration paradox" is the model misspecifications resulting in omitted variable bias.

This dissertation comprises of three related essays in regard of puzzling negative book equity phenomenon among U.S. public firms. In essay 1, I present the evidence that there is an increasing trend of negative book equity firms over the past 50 years, from 0.3% up to over 5% among publicly traded firms in US. In contrast to previous research which generally classify these firms as distressed firms with highly likelihood of bankruptcy, I propose a new method to separate Healthy Negative Book Equity Firms (HNBEF) from relatively more distressed negative book equity firms. The results show that HNBEF have much higher net income and interest coverage ratio, they survive longer, and pay more dividends. More interestingly, these firms are often actively increase share repurchases and debt issuance. These facts, combined with their strong profitability, indicate that managers of these firms are actively increasing their leverage and choose to be negative book equity firms. To explain the existence of HNBEF, in essay 2, I investigate several possible reasons that may contribute to the extreme leverage of these firms. I find that HNBEF are substantially undervalued by their book assets as stated on the balance sheet. In addition, the value of intangible …