Reporting the economic significance of findings in corporate finance has become increasingly common, but a review of the literature reveals shortcomings in typical reporting practices. Researchers can more effectively communicate the practical importance of findings by using standard measures of economic significance scaled by the standard deviation of the dependent variable, by providing all statistics necessary to calculate economic significance, and by providing benchmarks by which to evaluate the magnitude of economic significance. To support these objectives, I show why measures scaled by the standard deviation are preferable, and I provide benchmarks based on hundreds of established findings from the literature. (JEL C18, C52, G30).

I use firm-specific measures of openness to foreign investors to study the impact of stock market liberalization on firm-level operating performance. In a sample of over 1,100 firms from 28 countries, firms with stocks that are open to foreign investors experience higher growth, greater investment, greater profitability, greater efficiency, and lower leverage. Strategies to address potential endogeneity suggest that the observed relation reflects, at least in part, a causal effect of openness on operating performance.

In a sample of 398 firms from Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand, firm-level differences in variables related to corporate governance had a strong impact on firm performance during the East Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998. Significantly better stock price performance is associated with firms that had indicators of higher disclosure quality (ADRs and auditors from Big Six accounting firms), with firms that had higher outside ownership concentration, and with firms that were focused rather than diversified. The results suggest that individual firms have some power to preclude expropriation of minority shareholders if legal protection is inadequate.

I study the relation between corporate diversification and labor productivity in a sample of over 500,000 firms from 46 countries. Across the entire sample, greater diversification is associated with significantly lower labor productivity. The negative relation between diversification and labor productivity is not stronger in countries with more burdensome employment regulation, but it is significantly stronger in countries with better financial development. In addition, the negative relation is stronger in industries with high capital/labor ratios. Overall, the results suggest that the lower productivity in diversified firms is due more to the misallocation of capital than to the inefficient use of labor.

I document large variation in empirical methodology in corporate finance regressions in top finance journals. Although methodological variation allows for customization of empirical tests to fit specific theories, it can also enable excessive reporting of statistically significant results. For example, given discretion over 10 routine methodological decisions, a researcher could report that over 70% of randomly generated variables are statistically significant determinants of leverage at the 5% level. The methodological decisions that affect statistical significance the most are dependent variable selection, variable transformation, and outlier treatment. I discuss remedies that can mitigate the negative effects of methodological variation.

A diversified firm can trade at a discount to a matched portfolio of single-segment firms if the diversified firm has either lower expected cash flows or higher expected returns than the single-segment firms. We study whether firms with diversification discounts have higher expected returns in order to compensate investors for offering less upside potential (or skewness exposure) than focused firms. Our empirical tests support this hypothesis. First, we find that focused firms offer greater skewness exposure than diversified firms. Second, we find that diversified firms have significantly larger discounts when the diversified firm offers less skewness than matched single-segment firms. Finally, we find that up to 53% of the excess returns received on diversification-discount firms relative to diversification-premium firms can be explained by differences in exposure to skewness.

We develop a one-period model of investor asset holdings where investors have heterogeneous preference for skewness. Introducing heterogeneous preference for skewness allows the model's investors, in equilibrium, to underdiversify. We find support for our model's three key implications using a dataset of 60,000 individual investor accounts. First, we document that the portfolio returns of underdiversified investors are substantially more positively skewed than those of diversified investors. Second, we show that the apparent mean-variance inefficiency of underdiversified investors can be largely explained by the fact that investors sacrifice mean-variance efficiency for higher skewness exposure. Furthermore, we show that idiosyncratic skewness, and not just coskewness, can impact equilibrium prices. Third, the underdiversification of investors does not appear to be coincidentally related to skewness. Stocks most often selected by underdiversified investors have substantially higher average skewness—especially idiosyncratic skewness—than stocks most often selected by diversified investors.

[We develop a one-period model of investor asset holdings where investors have heterogeneous preference for skewness. Introducing heterogeneous preference for skewness allows the model's investors, in equilibrium, to underdiversify. We find support for our model's three key implications using a dataset of 60,000 individual investor accounts. First, we document that the portfolio returns of underdiversified investors are substantially more positively skewed than those of diversified investors. Second, we show that the apparent mean-variance inefficiency of underdiversified investors can be largely explained by the fact that investors sacrifice mean-variance efficiency for higher skewness exposure. Furthermore, we show that idiosyncratic skewness, and not just coskewness, can impact equilibrium prices. Third, the underdiversification of investors does not appear to be coincidentally related to skewness. Stocks most often selected by underdiversified investors have substantially higher average skewness-especially idiosyncratic skewness-than stocks most often selected by diversified investors.]

We test the prediction of recent theories that stocks with high idiosyncratic skewness should have low expected returns. Because lagged skewness alone does not adequately forecast skewness, we estimate a cross-sectional model of expected skewness that uses additional predictive variables. Consistent with recent theories, we find that expected idiosyncratic skewness and returns are negatively correlated. Specifically, the Fama-French alpha of a low-expected-skewness quintile exceeds the alpha of a high-expected-skewness quintile by 1.00% per month. Furthermore, the coefficients on expected skewness in Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions are negative and significant. In addition, we find that expected skewness helps explain the phenomenon that stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility have low expected returns.

[We test the prediction of recent theories that stocks with high idiosyncratic skewness should have low expected returns. Because lagged skewness alone does not adequately forecast skewness, we estimate a cross-sectional model of expected skewness that uses additional predictive variables. Consistent with recent theories, we find that expected idiosyncratic skewness and returns are negatively correlated. Specifically, the Fama-French alpha of a low-expected-skewness quintile exceeds the alpha of a high-expected-skewness quintile by 1.00% per month. Furthermore, the coefficients on expected skewness in Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions are negative and significant. In addition, we find that expected skewness helps explain the phenomenon that stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility have low expected returns.]