Contributions in Merlin

Higher-dimensional symmetric games become of more and more importance for applied micro- and macroeconomic research. Standard approaches to uniqueness of equilibria have the drawback that they are restrictive or not easy to evaluate analytically. In this paper I provide some general but comparably simple tools to verify whether a symmetric game has a unique symmetric equilibrium or not. I distinguish between the possibility of multiple symmetric equilibria and asymmetric equilibria which may be economically interesting and is useful to gain further insights into the causes of asymmetric equilibria in symmetric games with higher-dimensional strategy spaces. Moreover, symmetric games may be used to derive some properties of the equilibrium set of certain asymmetric versions of the symmetric game. I further use my approach to discuss the relationship between stability and (in)existence of multiple symmetric equilibria. While there is an equivalence between stability, inexistence of multiple symmetric equilibria and the unimportance of strategic effects for the comparative statics, this relationship breaks down in higher dimensions. Stability under symmetric adjustments is a minimum requirement of a symmetric equilibrium for reasonable comparative statics of symmetric changes. Finally, I present an alternative condition for a symmetric equilibrium to be a local contraction which is more general than the conventional approach of diagonal dominance and yet simpler to evaluate than the eigenvalue condition of continuous adjustment processes.

We argue that there is a connection between the interbank market for liquidity and the broader financial markets, which has its basis in demand for liquidity by banks. Tightness in the interbank market for liquidity leads banks to engage in what we term “liquidity pull-back,” which involves selling financial assets either by banks directly or by levered investors. Empirical tests support this hypothesis. While our data covers part of the recent crisis period, our results are not driven by the crisis. Our general point is that money matters in financial markets. Different financial assets have different degrees of moneyness (liquidity) and, as a result, there are systematic cross-sectional variations in trading activity as the price of liquidity, or the level of tightness, in the interbank market fluctuates.

null

Using comparative case studies, this paper shows how institutional contexts influence the process of diffusion of a complex technology by determining the pattern of material resources and authority available to actors in their struggles to control the technology, and by constituting the discursive resources that may be mobilized in their struggles to shape its meaning in preferred ways. The paper also reveals how governance structures may be contested and realigned when they conflict with interests legitimized by dominant institutional logics. This form of contestation and adjustment constitutes one mechanism by which institutional frameworks are tested, stretched and reproduced or redefined.

An agent can choose to forego bene ts from side opportunities and to instead provide bene ts to the principal. In return, the principal o¤ers rewards. If this exchange is not contractible, typically repeated interaction will be required to sustain it. This model allows the agents productivity in contractible and possibly also non-contractible actions inside the relationship to be correlated with productivity in side activities. This arguably realistic assumption yields several novel implications for the feasibility of relational contracts and for agent selection by principals. The analysis reveals, for example, that optimal agent productivity is often non-monotonic in the importance, to the principal, of ensuring agent reliability.

We show theoretically and empirically that Pay-for-Performance, like many management fashions, has not achieved its intended aim. Our research focuses on previous empirical studies that examine the relation between variable executive pay and firm performance on various different dates. Our results indicate that a variable CEO income contributes very little to the increase of the firm’s performance, and that CEO salary and firm performance are not linked. The example of Pay-for-Performance shows that in the long run, many management fashions do not solve the problems that they promise to solve.

Empirical investigations of analysts forecast surveys concerning earnings realizations find significant time varying biases usually attributed to the analysts liability to cognitive limitations. For example, a positive autocorrelation of analysts forecast errors is commonly explained by analysts underreaction. In this paper we develop a random dynamical system describing the evolution of analysts forecasts and firms prices and show that managerial guidance is capable to explain such inefficiencies in the analysts forecasting behavior. This result is well supported by empirical tests. In particular, we find that the managers of growth firms guide stronger than the managers of value firms, which allows further conclusions on the precision and efficiency of earnings forecasts released for value and growth stocks in line with the literature.

null

This paper presents a simple model of the firm life cycle that captures several stylized economic and financial features which usually require considerably more demanding approaches. We study the optimal capital accumulation policy of a financially constrained firm whose revenue is subject to an additive shock. Earnings can be paid as dividends or reinvested with the goal to maximize shareholder value. In our model, the optimal policy of firms is to reinvest earnings (rather than paying dividends) when small, hold precautionary savings, and grow larger than is socially optimal. Smaller firms also have a higher bankruptcy risk and a more volatile market value than larger firms. We observe the leverage effect and excess returns of value stocks. In the presence of business cycles, investment and initial public offerings are pro-cyclical, the default probability is counter-cyclical, and monetary policy increases excess capital holdings but otherwise has a negligible impact.