The process of security price adjustment to the release of new information has long held the interest of the finance profession, both in academics and in practice. The efficiency of financial markets in reflecting new information significantly impacts the allocation of capital and income within the markets1 and, consequently, can affect social welfare. Thus, public, business, and investment policies are all related to an understanding of the functioning of security markets and their utilization of information. As a result, a significant body of economic research has considered the impact of information upon security markets under a number of alternative market structures. In this paper, we attempt to contribute to this literature by extending previous research in the two related areas of speculation and information dissemination.

In their seminal paper, Modigliani and Miller [11], [12] demonstrate that if capital markets are perfect and investment policy is held constant, the market value of the firm is independent of its financial decisions. Furthermore, if capital markets are perfect, stockholders have incentive to choose the investment policy which maximizes the market value of the firm (see [6]). Motivated by this assumption, the firm has been viewed as a “black box;” namely, as one homogeneous unit whose clear objective is to maximize its market value. However, in a growing body of recent literature (see [1], [2], [7], [9], [13], and [14]), researchers recognize that the firm in an “imperfect” capital market is a collection of groups whose interests can, and do, conflict. Jensen and Meckling [9] study the roles of three important groups—the owner-manager, the stockholders, and the bondholders—focusing on the potential costs resulting from divergence of interests among them. They provide a theory of optimal capital structure in terms of reducing the costs of these conflicts.

Based on Markowitz's pioneering study [40], Sharpe [56] and Lintner [38] advanced the first positivist formulations of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Their models were subsequently refined by Mossin [45], Fama [15], Black [1], and others. Even though the CAPM has been studied extensively, it has not been empirically validated. According to Roll [48], the CAPM cannot be tested in an unambiguous fashion because of a number of intractable measurement and computational difficulties, and the joint nature of the hypotheses to be tested.

The specification of a statistical distribution which accurately models the behavior of stock returns continues to be a salient issue in financial economics. With the introduction of arithmetic and geometric Brownian motion models, much attention has recently focused on a Poisson mixture of distributions as an appropriate specification of stock returns. For example, see [12], [3], [8], [10], [5], and [1]. Consistent with empirical evidence, these models yield leptokurtic security return distributions and, furthermore, the specification has much economic intuition. In particular, one may always decompose the total change in stock price into “normal” and “abnormal” components. The “normal” change may be due to variation in capitalization rates, a temporary imbalance between supply and demand, or the receipt of any other information which causes marginal price changes. This component is modelled as a lognormal diffusion process. The “abnormal” change is due to the receipt of any information which causes a more than marginal change in the price of the stock and is usually modeled as a Poisson process.

The search for an economically sound procedure for estimating an appropriate rate of return on equity consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hope case [13] has led many economists, financial experts, and public service commissions to estimate the rate of return on equity with the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) (see [30], [19], and [21]). The popularity of the CAPM in regulatory proceedings was reported by Harrington [15] who, in a survey of public service commissions, found that 38 states were considering or had seen the CAPM used, two jurisdictions preferred the CAPM, Oregon required the CAPM, and South Carolina would require the CAPM in all future cases. Hence, given the popularity of the CAPM and the tremendous economic impact that outcomes of regulatory proceedings have on the financial well-being of both the regulated firm and the consumer, it is critical that if the CAPM is used in regulatory proceedings that it be applied in the best manner possible and that any limitations associated with the CAPM be recognized fully.

On March 28, 1979, failure occurred in one of the two nuclear reactors at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power generation facility owned by General Public Utilities (GPU). This nuclear “accident” was the first of its type in the United States, and much anecdotal evidence suggests that the accident intensified public concern and increased regulatory activity. Since this event, several proposed nuclear plants have been cancelled; safety rules have been tightened; certification (by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) of newly completed nuclear plants has been delayed; and the pressure to curtail or ban the use of nuclear technology continues.

A number of recent papers have shown that it is possible for an investor to immunize a portfolio of default and option-free coupon bonds so that the return realized over a given planning period will never be less than that promised at the time the bonds were purchased. In this way, a future fixed dollar liability may be discharged with certainty by acquiring an asset portfolio with a market value equal to the present value of the liability and setting its appropriate duration equal to the time remaining to the date of discharge. However, most investors have more than one liability to discharge. In his seminal article in 1952, F. M. Redington showed that a stream of liabilities may be immunized if an asset portfolio having the same present value as the liabilities is selected so that:

1. its duration is equal to the duration of the liabilities; and

2. “the spread of the value of asset-proceeds about the mean term (duration) should be greater than the spread of the value of the liability” ([16], p. 191).

Commercial banks have been the subjects of a large body of empirical research employing regression and econometric models and discriminant analysis. The purpose of this paper is to empirically identify and describe relationships, including hedging behavior, between the asset side and the liability/capital side of the balance sheets of a cross-section of large U.S. banks. Canonical correlation analysis is the statistical technique that is employed. Unlike regression analysis which explains the behavior of a single dependent variable as a function of a set of independent variables, canonical correlation analysis relates two sets of variables. In the present case, one set of variables is the composition of the lefthand side of the balance sheet and the other set is the right-hand side. The variables used in this study are asset and liability/capital categories expressed as a proportion of total bank assets (i.e., a percentage breakdown of the balance sheet or a common size statement). These proportions are used in lieu of the more usual financial ratios and no information exogenous to the bank is employed.

Black and Scholes [1] derived the pricing equation for a European put when the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion. For this same case, Merton [5] derived the pricing equation for an American put with infinite time to maturity. Brennan and Schwartz [2], Rubinstein and Cox [7], and Parkinson [6] have developed numerical solutions for the price of an American put. Numerical solutions are expensive and do not provide much intuition. Naturally, an analytic solution would be much preferred; unfortunately, pricing the American put requires solving a formidable and presumably intractable boundary value problem.