This article studies dynamic compensation and risk management under cash-flow volatility shocks. The optimal contract depends critically on firms’ ability to make good on promised future payments to managers. When volatility is low, firms with full commitment ability implement high pay–performance sensitivity to motivate effort from managers, and they impose large penalties on the arrival of volatility shocks to incentivize prudent risk management. In contrast, firms with limited commitment may allow excessive risk taking in exchange for low pay–performance sensitivity. When volatility becomes high, firms with full commitment defer compensation more, whereas firms with limited commitment must expedite payments.

We study a dynamic continuous-time principal-agent model with endogenous cash flow volatility. The principal supplies the agent with capital for investment, but the agent can misallocate capital for private benefit and has private control over both the volatility of the project and the size of the investment. The optimal incentive-compatible contract can yield either overly risky or overly prudent project selection; it can be implemented as a time-varying cost of capital in the form of a hurdle rate. Our model captures stylized facts about the use of hurdle rates in capital budgeting and helps to reconcile the mixed empirical evidence on the correlations among firm size, risk and managerial compensation.

We explore theoretically and empirically the relationship between firm productivity and liquidity management in the presence of financial frictions. We build a dynamic investment model and show that, counter to basic economic intuition, more productive firms could demand less capital assets and hold more liquid assets compared to less productive firms when financing costs are sufficiently high. We empirically test this prediction using a comprehensive dataset of Chinese manufacturers and find that more productive firms indeed hold less capital and more cash. We do not, however, observe this for US manufacturers. Our study suggests a larger capital misallocation problem in markets with significant financing frictions than previously documented.

How do firms modify CEO risk-incentive compensation in response to increased foreign competition? Theoretically we show the answer is ambiguous: increased competition can result in firms either increasing or decreasing the CEO's risk-taking incentives. Empirically using a quasi-natural experiment, tariff cuts resulting from important trade deals, we find evidence that in response to increases in foreign competition firms adjust CEO risk-incentive compensation downwards – a result that is more pronounced for firms with less risk-averse CEOs. These findings suggest that more intense foreign competition results in managers voluntarily taking on more risk, and firms therefore reduce the convexity in managers' compensation.

This paper studies the value of a firm’s internal information when the firm faces an adverse selection problem arising from unobservable managerial abilities. Although more precise information allows the firm to make ex post more efficient investment decisions, noisier information has an ex ante screening effect that allows the firm to attract on-average better managers. The tradeoff between more effective screening of managers and more informed investment implies a nonmonotonic relationship between firm value and information quality. A marginal improvement in information quality does not necessarily lead to an overall improvement in firm value.