Financial risk management

I investigate if all-equity firms are a heterogeneous group as it relates to agency costs and accounting quality. All-equity firms are a unique group of firms that choose a “corner solution” as their capital structure. Extant research, supported by well-established theories such as trade-off theory, free cash flow theory, and Jensen’s (1986) control hypothesis, generally conclude that agency conflicts motivate such structure. Research also supports the alternative argument that poor accounting quality makes debt so prohibitive that such firms are driven to this capital structure. I propose that an all-equity structure is not necessarily symptomatic of agency conflicts and poor accounting quality overall. I investigate if different motivations, within an all-equity setting, reflected by free cash flows and growth opportunities, result in different levels of agency cost and accounting quality. By anchoring on theories that link implicit costs of debt to free cash flow levels and growth opportunities, I hypothesize that free cash flows and growth opportunities are strongly linked to the justification or lack thereof for the pursuit of such strategy. I hypothesize and show that firms in the extremes of the free cash flow to growth rate spectrum exhibit significantly different levels of agency cost and accounting quality within the all-equity setting. These results support my main prediction that there exists agency costs and accounting quality differences within the all-equity setting which are associated with free cash flow levels and growth opportunities and that the pessimistic conclusions for pursuing an all-equity strategy reached by prior research should not be generalized to all such firms.

In essay I, I empirically examine theoretical inferences of real options models regarding the effects of business risk on the pricing of firms engaged in corporate control transactions. This study shows that the risk differential between the merging firms has a significant effect on the risk dynamic of bidding firms around control transactions and that the at-announcement risk dynamic is negatively related to that in the preannouncement period. In addition, the relative size of the target, the volatility of bidder cash flows, and the relative growth rate of the bidder have significant explanatory power in the cross-section of announcement returns to bidding firm shareholders as does the change in the cost of capital resulting from the transaction. Essay II provides an empirical analysis of a second set of real options models that theoretically examine the dynamics of financial risk around control transactions as well as the link between financial leverage and the probability of acquisition. In addition, I present a comparison of the financial risk dynamics of firms that choose an external growth strategy, through acquisition, and those that pursue an internal growth strategy through capital expenditures that are unrelated to acquisition.

The main objective of this thesis is to simulate, evaluate and discuss three standard methodologies of calculating Value-at-Risk (VaR) : Historical simulation, the Variance-covariance method and Monte Carlo simulations. Historical simulation is the most common nonparametric method. The Variance-covariance and Monte Carlo simulations are widely used parametric methods. This thesis defines the three aforementioned VaR methodologies, and uses each to calculate 1-day VaR for a hypothetical portfolio through MATLAB simulations. The evaluation of the results shows that historical simulation yields the most reliable 1-day VaR for the hypothetical portfolio under extreme market conditions. Finally, this paper concludes with a suggestion for further studies : a heavy-tail distribution should be used in order to imporve the accuracy of the results for the two parametric methods used in this study.