Over the last decades, firms have been incorporating digital technologies into their operations, a process known as digitalization. Nevertheless, understanding the link between digitalization and firm performance remains challenging. We propose a new firm-level measure of digital intensity based on textual analysis of business descriptions and quarterly earnings calls. To overcome endogeneity, we use two quasi-natural experiments: the COVID-19 pandemic and shocks involving suppliers affected by U.S. natural disasters. Non-technological firms with higher pre-shock digital intensity experience higher abnormal returns, higher profitability, and higher revenue growth during the shocks. The supply chain is one of the areas through which digitalization contributes to significantly mitigate the effects of these shocks, thereby enhancing firm resilience.

We study the role played by the informal links, or “connections,” between the chief executive officer (CEO) and the divisional managers of conglomerate organizations. Using data on a large sample of multisegment U.S. corporations from 1996 to 2004, we show that segments run by connected managers receive more investment and exhibit lower sensitivity to cash flow shortfalls (and exhibit higher sensitivity to other segments’ cash flow). At the firm level, having more connected managers presiding over segments with high Tobin’s Q improves resource allocation and increases firm value. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the mutual trust associated with connections reduces the need for wasteful reallocation of resources across divisions of conglomerate firms.

We investigate how ownership patterns affect the way the firm is monitored, the liquidity of its shares, and its stock price. We show that informed ownership improves governance and induces value-enhancing decisions (less over-investment and fewer but better acquisitions). At the same time, it increases the adverse selection discount required by less informed investors to trade, reducing the firm's liquidity. Both effects are impounded in the stock price. This explains why ownership seems to be unrelated to performance. Informed investors affect prices in opposite directions: monitoring would raise prices, but the lower liquidity induced by their presence would reduce them.

Horizontal directors, board members who also hold board seats in same-industry peers, are common in U.S. corporations. We posit that horizontal directorships can enhance the efficiency of corporate investment decisions. Horizontal directors enjoy access to current information flows, which help boards fulfill their roles of advising and monitoring – a form of learning from peers. We find that horizontal directorships are negatively related to investment inefficiency, and with over-investment in particular. Exogenous shocks to board composition provide a causal interpretation to our findings. Our paper contributes to a nuanced view of horizontal directors by highlighting their contribution to mitigate excessive investment.

The fastest growing segment of private equity (PE) deals is secondary buyouts (SBOs)—sales from one PE fund to another. Using a comprehensive sample of leveraged buyouts, we investigate whether SBOs are value-maximizing, or reflect opportunistic behavior. To proxy for adverse incentives, we develop buy and sell pressure indexes based on how close PE funds are to the end of their investment period or lifetime, their unused capital, reputation, deal activity, and fundraising frequency. We report that funds under pressure engage more in SBOs. Pressured buyers pay higher multiples, use less leverage, and syndicate less suggesting that their motive is to spend equity. Pressured sellers exit at lower multiples and have shorter holding periods. When pressured counterparties meet, deal multiples depend on differential bargaining power. Moreover, funds that invested under pressure underperform.

This paper investigates how the investment horizon of a firm's institutional shareholders impacts the market for corporate control. We find that target firms with short-term shareholders are more likely to receive an acquisition bid but get lower premiums. This effect is robust and economically significant: Targets whose shareholders hold their stocks for less four months, one standard deviation away from the average holding period of 15 months, exhibit a lower premium by 3%. In addition, we find that bidder firms with short-term shareholders experience significantly worse abnormal returns around the merger announcement, as well as higher long-run underperformance. These findings suggest that firms held by short-term investors have a weaker bargaining position in acquisitions. Weaker monitoring from short-term shareholders could allow managers to proceed with value-reducing acquisitions or to bargain for personal benefits (e.g., job security, empire building) at the expense of shareholder returns.

This paper examines how shareholder investment horizons influence payout policy choices. The authors infer institutional shareholders' investment horizons using the churn rate of their overall stock portfolios prior to the payout decision. The authors find that the frequency and amount of repurchases increases with ownership by short-term investors to the detriment of dividends. They also find that the market reacts less positively to repurchase announcements made by firms held by short-term institutions. These findings are consistent with a model in which undervalued firms signal their value through repurchases, but firms held by short-term investors make repurchases more often because those investors care mostly about the short-term price reaction. Hence, the market rationally discounts the signal provided by such repurchases. Our findings suggest that shorter shareholder investment horizons might be one contributing factor to the increasing popularity of buybacks.

We investigate whether mutual fund families strategically transfer performance across member funds to favor those more likely to increase overall family profits. We find that “high family value” funds (i.e., high fees or high past performers) overperform at the expense of “low value” funds. Such a performance gap is above the one existing between similar funds not affiliated with the same family. Better allocations of underpriced initial public offering deals and opposite trades across member funds partly explain why high value funds overperform. Our findings highlight how the family organization prevalent in the mutual fund industry generates distortions in delegated asset management.