Related party transactions (RPTs) are potential means for insiders to expropriate outside shareholders via self‐dealing. There are, however, possible benefits to these arrangements for outside shareholders. We find that the overall volume of disclosed RPTs is generally not significantly associated with shareholder wealth as measured by operating profitability or Tobin's Q. However, the results for total RPT volume obscure that ex ante RPTs, transactions that predate a counterparty becoming a related party, are innocuous at worst in terms of their association with operating profitability and significantly positively associated with Tobin's Q whereas ex post RPTs, transactions initiated after a counterparty becomes a related party, are significantly negatively associated with operating profitability. Ex post RPTs also result in significant share price declines when first disclosed and are associated with an increased likelihood that a firm will enter financial distress or deregister its securities. These results are consistent with ex post RPTs serving as means for insiders to expropriate outside shareholders.

We investigate the upstream and downstream product-market effects of a large sample of horizontal mergers and acquisitions from 1980 to 1997. We construct a data set that identifies the corporate customers, suppliers, and rivals of the firms initiating horizontal mergers and use this data set to examine announcement-related stock market revaluations and post-merger changes in operating performance. We find little evidence consistent with increased monopolistic collusion. However, we do find evidence consistent with improved productive efficiency and buying power as sources of gains to horizontal mergers. The nature of the buying power gains, i.e., rents from monopsonistic collusion or improved purchasing efficiency, is also investigated.

We investigate the relation between common institutional ownership of the firms in an industry and product market competition. We find that common ownership is neither robustly positively related with industry profitability or output prices nor is it robustly negatively related with measures of nonprice competition, as would be expected if common ownership reduces competition. This conclusion holds regardless of industry classification choice, common ownership measure, profitability measure, nonprice competition proxy, or model specification. Our point estimates are close to zero with tight bounds, rejecting even modestly sized economic effects. We conclude that antitrust restrictions seeking to limit intra-industry common ownership are not currently warranted.

We examine the relation between firm diversification and asymmetric information empirically using metrics drawn from the market microstructure literature. We find that the average diversified firm in our sample has somewhat less severe asymmetric information problems than a similarly constructed portfolio of stand-alone firms chosen to approximate the segments of the conglomerate. We also find that the information asymmetry of diversified firms is very similar to that of individual focused firms that approximate the conglomerates along several dimensions not including industry composition. We conclude that greater diversification is not on average associated with increased asymmetric information.

Deregulation of the trucking industry and significantly lowered transportation costs led to large, widespread, and plausibly exogenous reductions in inventory for U.S. firms, with consequent increased supply-chain disruption (SCD) costs. We find evidence that increased SCD costs help explain the puzzling long-term trend of increasing average U.S. firm cash holdings. We also find that firms facing higher expected costs of disruptions generally save more cash from capital freed up via supply-chain management innovations. Finally, we document significant postdisruption declines in cash holdings consistent with cash as a primary source of financing during disruptions.

This paper investigates whether leveraged buyouts (LBOs) increase the bargaining power of firms with their suppliers. We find that suppliers to LBO firms experience significantly negative abnormal returns at the announcements of downstream LBOs. We also find that suppliers who have likely made substantial relationship-specific investments are more negatively affected, both in terms of abnormal stock returns and reduced profit margins, than suppliers of commodity products or transitory suppliers. Interestingly, leveraged recapitalization announcements are not associated with negative returns to suppliers, suggesting that increased leverage without an accompanying change in organizational form does not, on average, lead to price concessions from suppliers.

This paper exploits the 1990 change in capital adequacy regulations to construct more powerful tests of capital and earnings management effects on bank loan loss provisions. We find strong support for the hypothesis that loan loss provisions are used for capital management. We do not find evidence of earnings management via loan loss provisions. We also document the reasons for the conflicting results on these effects observed in prior studies. Additionally, we find that loan loss provisions are negatively related to both future earnings changes and contemporaneous stock returns contrary to the signaling results documented in prior work.

This paper investigates the timing and source of anomalous positive long-run abnormal returns following repurchase authorizations. Returns between program authorization and completion announcements are indistinguishable from 0. Abnormal returns occur only after completion announcements. Long-run returns are largely attributable to announcement returns at subsequent authorizations and takeover attempts; that is, anomalous post-authorization returns are not persistent drifts but rather step functions. These findings have important implications for prior papers examining this most persistent and widespread anomaly. Further, our results serve to refocus the search for a rational explanation for the anomaly on subsequent repurchase announcements and takeover bids.

A fundamental prediction from principal-agent theory is that firms facing greater ex ante exposures to exogenous common shocks should more frequently utilize relative performance evaluation (RPE) in CEO compensation contracts. Recent advances in modeling the economy as a supply network consisting of sectors connected through input-output linkages establish that industries positioned more centrally or upstream face greater ex ante exposures to exogenous common shocks propagating through the network. This paper investigates the impact of firms' network positions on the use of RPE in CEO compensation. We find that firms in industries positioned more centrally or upstream use RPE more frequently and base greater fractions of CEO pay on RPE. We also document that network positions explain variation in firms' RPE-plan implementation via the selection of peers. Our findings are consistent with boards using RPE to filter from CEO pay exogenous shocks to firm performance inherent in firms' supply network positions.

We examine the influence of outside directors’ industry experience on segment investment, segment operating performance, and firm valuation for conglomerates. Given board composition is endogenous, we instrument for the presence of industry expert directors using the supply of experienced executives near conglomerate firms’ headquarters. We find that industry expert representation on the board causes increased segment investment. Consistent with experienced directors playing favorites rather than acting as dispassionate advisors, segment profitability (firm value) is lower for segments (firms) with industry expert outside directors. We do not find analogous negative profitability or valuation effects of director experience for single-segment firms.