This paper examines a conceptual framework for normative models of financial management in commercial banks. Since the bank is viewed as a financial intermediary, it is argued that the appropriate conceptual framework for bank financial management models is one that focuses on imperfections in the markets in which the bank operates.

This paper has examined the investment performance of the common stock portfolios of 20 property-liability insurance companies over the period 1958–1967. The performance of these portfolios was compared with the performance of both equal-weighted and value-weighted random portfolios of common stocks. The evidence indicated that the returns earned by the insurance companies were significantly lower than the returns earned by random portfolios of equivalent risk.

While this study is not precisely comparable to the previously published studies of mutual funds in terms of either the methodology employed or the time period considered, the results are quite similar. An additional group of institutional investors can be seen not to have outperformed the “market.” The presumption of inferior performance is even stronger in the case of the property-liability companies because all the comparisons in this study were made on a gross basis. Most of the studies of mutual fund performance have compared fund returns net of investment expenses to the gross returns from random investments. In those instances where comparisons were made on a gross basis, the performance of fund portfolios was found to be very similar to the performance of random investments.

Traditional planning for working capital needs is typically conducted with a relatively short time horizon. In this process, management attempts to optimize the return on existing fixed assets. The period for capital investment planning is much longer, reflecting the irreversibility of these decisions. Current research in the two areas tends to dichotomize these decision processes. The implications seem to be that working capital policies only have impact in the short run. However, it is clear that cash flows for potential capital expenditures are based on assumptions relative to expected future demand and production to meet this demand—assumptions that are necessarily tied to working capital commitments in the long run. The overall planning for credit, inventory, and liquidity should, therefore, be carried out before, or simultaneously with, the capital investment decision. It is a planning requirement that becomes an integral part of the total asset planning system. The vast majority of existing working capital models or long-term capital planning models do not allow for the explicit existence of and the simultaneous interrelationships between these two important subsystems.

On February 1, 1971, the National Association of Security Dealers instituted an automatic quoting system for over-the-counter stocks. Heralded as a major advance in the elimination of market imperfections, the National Association of Security Dealers Automatic Quote System (NASDAQ) allowed bidand- ask prices of different firms in this geographically dispersed market to be centralized. Essentially its operation allowed individual “houses” to obtain the various bid-and-ask prices of market makers for a given unlisted security.

A fundamental function of any portfolio selection model is the identification of inefficient portfolios and the consequent reduction of the set of alternative investments that the decision maker must evaluate. In the absence of a specific utility function, the establishment of criteria for the identification of inefficient portfolios must strike a compromise in terms of convenience and effectiveness. Of the myriad possibilities, models employing a criterion based on two parameters have been found most convenient for reasons of simplicity of interpretation and computational feasibility. Certainly, the most popular of the two parameter models has been the expected value-variance (E-V) formulation first proposed by Markowitz [7]. The basic E-V model developed for individual decision making has been extended by Sharpe, Lintner, and others [1, 4, 3, 9] to set forth an extensive theory which seeks to explain the equilibrium price of risky assets. The purpose of the present paper is to review and extend some of the implications of an alternative two-parameter portfolio selection model, called the expected value-semivariance model (E-S). In particular, the discussion focuses on certain contrasts and similarities between the E-V and the E-S models.

A convertible bond is a hybrid financial instrument that incorporates features of a bond (fixed income security) and an equity claim (usually common stock). In most instances the convertible can be exchanged, at the holder's option, for the common shares of the corporation issuing the convertible. The conversion value, or stock value, is the market value of the common shares for which the convertible can be exchanged. The bond value or floor price is the market value of an equivalent bond that does not include a conversion feature. The market price of a convertible will be the conversion value or the bond value, whichever is higher, plus a premium. The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a model which estimates the premium. The premium estimated is defined as the difference between the market price of the convertible and the bond value or conversion value, whichever is larger. No consideration will be given to convertible preferreds.

It is widely assumed in portfolio theory that investors are risk-averse expected-utility maximizers. There is a good theoretical reason for assuming expected-utility maximization. Such behavior is well known to be consistent with several quite plausible postulates of rationality [5]. On the other hand, the main empirical foundation for such behavior in portfolio selection appears to be the observation of diversification. Risk-averse, expected-utility maximization implies diversification in portfolio selection, and investors are observed to diversify.

Previous empirical studies of mutual fund performance relative to market performance were conducted using two- and three-moment analysis. This study has applied first-, second-, and third-degree stochastic dominance principles to investigate the same question. Our results support the earlier Sharpe study and oppose the recent Arditti work. From the investor's standpoint, mutual fund performance was inferior to market performance over the period 1954–1963.

Selection of funding levels for research and development (R & D) projects is a major problem facing the firm. Models for selecting funding levels have frequently been formulated under the assumptions that the projects can be evaluated independently (Aldrich [1], Hess [4], Lucas [6]) or that the projects are interrelated only in terms of requirements for specialized input resources (Asher [2]). In fact, the projects of a given firm are likely to be highly interdependent, either in the sense that progress on one project eases work on another (research interdependency) or in the sense that completion of one project alters the market situation of another (output interdependency). While Weingartner [8] discusses these interdependencies, he does so under the assumption that the project funding level is fixed.

This paper has presented a model for solving a central problem of short-term financial management — cash planning and credit-line determination. The core of the model is an algorithmic procedure for finding the best cash plan and the associated credit line for a given operating plan and long-term financial plan. Since the model requires a computation of cash balances, it must be embedded in a financial statement simulator.

The two keys to the model are:

1. the use of priority rankings in specifying the order in which assets and liabilities are used to change cash balances;

2. the separation of solution constraints into two classes—consistency conditions given by C1, C2, and C3 and feasibility conditions stated in C4, C5, and C6. The latter conditions require changes in the long-term plan (or the operating plan) to obtain feasibility of the short-term plan.

The use of priority rankings and the separation of solution constraints into these two classes makes possible the formulation of an algorithmic procedure that is computationally efficient and that avoids having to solve amathematical programming problem.

The benefits of the model are: (1) saved time; (2) increased accuracy in cash planning; (3) quick determination of infeasibility with respect to the short-term plan. For a firm already using financial statement simulation, the model is sufficiently easy to program and implement so that saved user time and system expense alone easily justify the cost of developing the system. Finally, a system that automatically handles short-term cash planning is critical for other areas of short-term planning, for meaningful sensitivity analysis, and for long-term financial planning for firms (such as General Recreation) for which a substantial part of the total financing is provided by either credit-line borrowing or commercial paper issuance.

Because of the similarity of both banking and financial practice across firms and banks, the basic approach used in this model is applicable to most nonfinancial corporations.

A firm periodically makes three major classes of decisions that determine its structure as reflected on its balance sheet. The first relates to the total amount of investment as well as the distribution of this total amount among different types of assets. This decision determines the size of the firm and the structure of the “assets” side of its balance sheet. The second is concerned with the relative proportion of equity versus debt capital to be used in financing the firm. This decision determines the structure of the “sources” side of the balance sheet by establishing relative sizes of liabilities and stockholders' worth. The third is the choice of the proportion of the equity which should be raised through the retention of earnings and the proportion to be raised through the sale of new stock. This decision determines the dividends that will be distributed and the composition of the stockholders' worth portion of the balance sheet.

The majority of corporate bonds are callable before maturity at the option of the issuer. Unlike other security options (warrants, convertible bonds, etc.), the call provision cannot be resold; its value can be realized only by exercising it. The problem is to choose the optimal time to perform refunding (including the alternative of not refunding before maturity).

One of the most important innovations in bond financing and in mortgage lending has been the rapid adoption of variable-rate instruments in recent years. Notes and bonds bearing an interest rate between one and two percentage points above the prime rate are becoming common in corporate financing. Similarly, variable-rate mortgages (VRM's) with the interest rate tied to the deposit rate of S&L's or linked to the changing yields on competing investments have spread beyond Florida and California to many states. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board has recently endorsed the variable-rate concept and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is preparing guidelines for secondary market operations in VRM's. Portfolio managers are thus taking note of the possibility of acquiring long-term instruments providing some of the resiliency of yields and a measure of real value protection characteristic of short-term issues.

The attempt to incorporate securities market imperfections other than proportional taxes within a mean-variance security valuation context has met with modest success. Lintner [5], however, has recently considered imperfections by the device of segmented markets. His paper has motivated the following taxonomy. Securities markets are defined as weakly segmented if some of the securities in at least one market are available to some investors but not to others, partially segmented if the sets containing both investors and available securities in each market are disjoint, and completely segmented if additionally the sets of firms in each market are disjoint. Segmented markets effectively relax the separation property of mean-variance equilibrium models (i.e., all investors, irrespective of differences in present wealth or preferences, divide their wealth between the same two mutual funds; one is risk-free and the other is the market portfolio of risky securities). This property unfortunately implies that each investor must hold a portion of every available risky security. This is empirically unrealistic, primarily due to restrictions on borrowing and shorting and scale economies in security analysis and brokerage. Moreover, even in the absence of these complications, ownership of nonmarketable assets, nonhomogeneous beliefs, or breakdown of the separation property due to tastes or nonnormality will motivate individuals to hold different risky portfolios. The device of segmented markets embodies in extreme form these obstacles to diversification and portfolio similarity.

The evolution of corporate capital structure theory in the literature of finance has been marked by the development of an increasingly imaginative rendition of market processes under conditions of uncertainty. Trade-offs between debt and equity sources of financing, and their consequent impact on shareholder wealth, have been the major concern. While the evolution is by no means complete, the notion of an efficient capital market in which investor decisions are focused on security portfolio building activities has provided significant insights into the range of opportunities open to corporate management to enhance share valuation through enlightened financing decisions. One measure of the gap between theory and application, however, can be found in the topics which thus far have not been effectively comprehended in the literature, even though the analytical technology is clearly available. Among those topics is the question of convertible debt financing as a capital structure component. The treatment of such a funds source remains essentially in the realm of folklore, the typical story being that convertibles contain the “best elements” of both equity and straight debt or that they provide a vehicle for issuing equity at a “bonus” price higher than the current price. Closer examination reveals that either view is arrant nonsense, and it is to a demonstration of this point that the present paper is addressed.

Intelligent corporate financial planning has been necessary for as long as the corporate form of business enterprise has existed. Only in recent years, however, have computer technology and academic theorizing been harnessed to meet this practical need. Without wishing to minimize the impact and value of these efforts on the practice of corporate finance, we do think there are grounds for believing that the new finance “tools” have been less than maximally effective. In this article we contrast typical financial modeling theory in order to interpret the gap between the two. Then we describe a financial policy model whose characteristics might be expected to be more acceptable in practice. Finally, we discuss the implications of the theory/practice gap and our experience with this model for future scholarly activities in the modeling of financial policies.