In this paper we investigate the impact of institutional ownership on UK mergers and acquisitions. We employ a comprehensive sample of M&As conducted by UK acquirers from 2000 to 2010, thus including a full cycle of peak and trough in M&A waves. We find that institutional investors increase the likelihood of an M&A to be a large, cross-border deal, opting for full control. Moreover, institutional ownership concentration and foreign institutional ownership increase the likelihood of cross-border M&As. In addition, we assess the influence of institutional shareholders’ investment horizon and find that while investment horizon have a negative influence in encouraging cross-border M&As, the presence of long-term investors encourages larger M&As. Finally, even after controlling for the 2007–08 financial crisis the market reacts negatively to the announcement of cross-border M&As.

Raising equity capital via Private Investments in Public Equity (PIPEs) has been rising in popularity, matching Seasoned Equity Offerings (SEOs). We use over 10,000 PIPEs in a global setting during 1995–2015 to assess how and through which channels institutional frameworks affect the issuers' performance. We document a significant decline in the market reaction, especially during 2004–2015 and find that firms issuing equity via PIPEs have significantly worse fundamentals. We also show that country governance matters as issuing firms operating in countries with better regulatory environments outperform others. Finally, we find that regulatory enforcement is a plausible underlying channel for the positive effect of the institutional frameworks on PIPEs performance.

We analyze a uniquely constructed data set of open market share repurchases across a sample of European firms. We find that the announcement date market reaction is lower than that in the US, mainly because of (i) the relatively large number of recurring announcements which generate significantly lower returns than the initial announcements of intention to repurchase shares; (ii) the rather low market reaction in France, due probably to specific governance and corporate cultural issues; and (iii) the regulatory reform that allowed UK firms to keep the repurchased shares as treasury stock, which decreased their market impact. Across our countries, taxation, shareholder protection, and the European Union’s Market Abuse Directive do not affect significantly the market valuation of repurchases. Our results imply that ultimately, domestic institutional specificities and reforms play significant roles in the market valuation and popularity of share repurchases.

An open market share buyback is not a firm commitment, and there is limited evidence on whether firms repurchase the intended shares. Unlike US studies, we use data from unique UK regulatory and disclosure environment that allows to accurately measure the share buyback completion rates. We show that information disclosure and CEO overconfidence are significant determinants of the share buyback completion rate. In addition, we find that large and widely held firms that conduct subsequent buyback programs and have a past buyback completion reputation exhibit higher completion rates. Finally, we assess whether other CEO characteristics affect buyback completion rates and find that firms with senior CEOs who hold external directorships and have a longer tenure as CEO are more likely to complete the buyback programs. In sum, our results suggest there is a clear relationship between information disclosure, CEO overconfidence, and buyback completion rates.

Patent attorneys are responsible for obtaining patents that bring the highest expected profits for their corporate clients. We investigate the role of patent attorney capability in determining the value of corporate patents. We find that a one standard deviation increase in legal expertise leads to a 0.04% rise in patents' market valuation and a 3% increase in citations. This finding holds irrespective of the number of patents obtained by patent attorneys to date (process experience). To establish causality, we exploit a novel shock: the opening of new regional patent offices in the US; and changes in a firm's patent attorney. Overall, we find that capable patent attorneys matter as they increase both the economic and technological value of corporate patents.

In this paper, we analyze whether regulation reduced risk during the credit crisis and the sovereign debt crisis for a cross section of global banks. In this regard, we examine distance to default (Laeven and Levine, 2008), systemic risk (Acharya et al., 2010), idiosyncratic risk, and systematic risk. We employ World Bank survey data on regulations to test our conjectures. We find that regulatory restrictions, official supervisory power, capital stringency, along with private monitoring can explain bank risk in both crises. Additionally, we find that deposit insurance schemes enhance moral hazard, as this encouraged banks to take on more risk and perform poorly during the sovereign debt crisis. Finally, official supervision and private monitoring explains the returns during both crisis periods.