ABSTRACT Data on corporate governance and disclosure practices reveal wide within‐country variation that decreases with the strength of investors' legal protection. A simple model identifies three firm attributes related to that variation: investment opportunities, external financing, and ownership structure. Using firm‐level governance and transparency data from 27 countries, we find that all three firm attributes are related to the quality of governance and disclosure practices, and firms with higher governance and transparency rankings are valued higher in stock markets. All relations are stronger in less investor‐friendly countries, demonstrating that firms adapt to poor legal environments to establish efficient governance practices.

We explore whether disclosures in the Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) have spillover effects for investment and investment efficiency, and whether spillover effects vary with competition. We focus on the tone of MD&A disclosures and document that the association between a company's investments and the tone of its rivals' MD&A disclosures is positive. Moreover, this association is moderated by competition; it is stronger when firms operate in industries that have lower entry costs, are larger, and have less substitutable products. We obtain similar results for investment efficiency. Overall, our evidence suggests that MD&A disclosures have spillover effects for investment that can improve investment efficiency, and that spillover effects are moderated by industry competition.

ABSTRACT This study analyzes the information conveyed by the restatements of financial reports. We argue that restatements contain news about the investment projects of the restating firms' competitors. This news causes competitors to revise their beliefs about the projects' value, and to modify their subsequent investment decisions. Accordingly, we hypothesize that changes in competitors' investments after restatement announcements are related to news in the restatements. Consistent with our prediction, we find that changes in competitors' investments following restatement announcements are significantly related to various proxies for news in the restatements, such as competitors' and restating firms' abnormal returns at the restatement announcements. We conclude that restatements convey information about the investment projects of restating firms' competitors.

[We examine how local and global political risks affect industry return volatility. Our central premise is that some industries are more sensitive to political events than others. We find that industries that are more dependent on trade, contract enforcement, and labor exhibit greater return volatility when local political risks are higher. Political uncertainty in countries of trading partners of trade-dependent industries similarly results in greater volatility. Volatility decomposition results indicate that while systematic volatility is associated with domestic political uncertainty, global political risks translate into larger idiosyncratic volatility.]

Using a hand-collected sample of state-owned enterprises and newly privatized firms around the globe, we examine financial reporting quality in natural advantage (substantial oil reserves or mineral deposits) industries. We find that ultimate state ownership tends to deteriorate financial reporting quality. Such a finding tends to occur particularly in countries with low shareholder minority protection, low financial development, high resource extraction intensity, low freedom of the press, collectivist societies, poor government anti-diversion policies, and in resource-dependent countries. Finally, we document that ultimate state ownership in the context of better financial reporting quality is associated with exacerbated capital expenditures, which indicate resource overextraction. Such a finding applies particularly to resource-dependent countries and civil-law countries.

We analyze the role of political instability for the composition of foreign investment, whether it takes the form of a majority- or minority-owned investment. We focus on the instability generated by the change of the party in power rather than on the risk of change of political regime or expropriation risk associated with this change. In majority-owned establishments, a foreign investor retains the control and enjoys fewer agency problems, while for minority-owned investments or joint ventures domestic partners of a foreign investor can lobby the government for preferential arrangements, such as firm-specific tax breaks. Political instability decreases the payoff of political connections in the future and decreases the attractiveness of minority-owned investments. The implications of our model are supported by empirical tests.

ABSTRACT We document a robust cross‐sectional positive association across industries between a measure of the economic efficiency of corporate investment and the magnitude of firm‐specific variation in stock returns. This finding is interesting for two reasons, neither of which is a priori obvious. First, it adds further support to the view that firm‐specific return variation gauges the extent to which information about the firm is quickly and accurately reflected in share prices. Second, it can be interpreted as evidence that more informative stock prices facilitate more efficient corporate investment.

We examine how local and global political risks affect industry return volatility. Our central premise is that some industries are more sensitive to political events than others. We find that industries that are more dependent on trade, contract enforcement, and labor exhibit greater return volatility when local political risks are higher. Political uncertainty in countries of trading partners of trade-dependent industries similarly results in greater volatility. Volatility decomposition results indicate that while systematic volatility is associated with domestic political uncertainty, global political risks translate into larger idiosyncratic volatility. (JEL G10, G15) On September 29, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down the bailout bill proposed by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in order to provide extra liquidity to the troubled U.S. financial markets. Within two hours the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index increased by 17%, while in one day the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index dropped 778 points. Global stock markets reacted in a similar fashion.1 Clearly, the uncertainty about the outcome of a critical vote was reflected by both domestic and global stock

We examine how firms' reliance on Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs), either by registering or setting up subsidiaries in OFCs, affects their financial performance. Using multilevel mixed (fixed and random) effects regressions, we provide evidence that is consistent with the agency costs of tax avoidance. Information asymmetry and lax legal environments in OFCs offset tax benefits, especially for firms directly registered in OFCs. Firms directly registered in OFCs are valued 14% lower than onshore firms, while firms with subsidiaries in OFCs enjoy an 11% higher valuation than onshore firms. However, it appears that investors do not fully appreciate the extent of the agency costs due to increased information asymmetry of firms that set up subsidiaries in OFCs. We argue that the assessment of firm value must encompass the registration status of its subsidiaries rather than the parent company's origin.

We analyze initial public offering (IPO) activity under political uncertainty surrounding gubernatorial elections in the United States. There are fewer IPOs originating from a state when it is scheduled to have an election. To establish identification, we develop a neighboring-states method that uses bordering states without elections as a control group. The dampening effect of elections on IPO activity is stronger for firms with more concentrated businesses in their home states, firms that are more dependent on government contracts (particularly state contracts), and harder-to-value firms. This dampening effect is related to lower IPO offer prices (hence, higher costs of capital) during election years.