Abstract This paper provides an overview of valuation multiples in mergers and acquisitions advisory. I review the literature and legal controversies and the theoretical basis for their role. I then standardize all the advisor multiples available in SDC Platinum along four dimensions and report rich descriptive statistics on each dimension over time and across industries. I highlight eight findings that are notable in light of current knowledge and debates. This paper answers the call from Gow et al. (Journal of Accounting Research 54(2):477–523, 2016) for thorough descriptive research, to provide a foundation and prompts for future hypothesis development. It includes an explicit guide for using this data, an overview of the key institutional details, and a discussion of tractable and open research questions.

Abstract Recent years have witnessed significant growth in corporate sustainability reporting. Yet existing research provides mixed evidence on the information content of these reports for investors. We examine the stock market reaction to the announcement of a sample of US corporate sustainability reports incorporating Sustainability Accounting Standards Board metrics that are intended to provide financially material information to investors. Using standard measures of information content, we cannot find compelling evidence that these reports provide a significant amount of new information to investors. Further analysis of a subset of common metrics indicates that they are either financially immaterial or preempted by traditional financial disclosures. Finally, we show that most firms target their sustainability reports at a broad set of sustainability-oriented stakeholders rather than a narrow set of financially oriented investors.

After decades of de-prioritizing shareholders’ economic interests and low corporate profitability, Japan introduced the JPX-Nikkei400 in 2014. The index highlighted the country’s “best-run” companies by annually selecting the 400 most profitable of its large and liquid firms. We find that managers competed for inclusion in the index by significantly increasing return on equity (ROE), and they did so at least in part due to their reputational or status concerns. The ROE increase was predominantly driven by improvements in margins, which were in turn partially driven by cutting research and development (R&D) intensity. Our findings suggest that indexes can affect managerial behavior through reputational or status incentives.