[We theoretically and empirically address the endogeneity of corporate ownership structure and the cost of debt, with a novel emphasis on the role of control concentration in post-default firm restructuring. Control concentration raises agency costs of debt, and dominant shareholders trade off private benefits of control against higher borrowing costs in choosing their ownership stakes. Based on our theoretical predictions, and using an international sample of syndicated loans and unique dynamic ownership structure data, we present new evidence on the firm- and macro-level determinants of corporate control concentration and the cost of debt.]

How does common ownership affect creative destruction? What are the underlying mechanisms? Do the effects of increased common ownership vary among different customer segments? Using product-level data, we show that, on average, firms with greater common ownership introduce new products at a faster rate and discontinue existing products at a similar pace. The observed economic impacts intensify over time, reflecting the gradual nature of knowledge spillovers and the learning curve. Subsequent to an increase in common ownership, portfolio firms tend to both add and drop products that are dissimilar to those of their rival firms, with the net effect of decreasing between-firm product dissimilarity. We also find that the effects are more relevant for product modules with greater technological likeness, lower barriers to market entry, and greater numbers of product market players. Product variety is substantially greater in product lines catering to higher-income households. Overall, the result highlights the procompetitive effects of increased common ownership.

Is reduction in supplier costs a significant channel for value creation by activist investors? Using a comprehensive sample of shareholder activism during 1994–2015, and addressing endogeneity concerns, we find significant economics effects on the profits and capital investment of the target's suppliers after intervention. Consistent with the predictions of the incomplete contracting and bargaining literatures, factors that weaken (strengthen) the bargaining power of suppliers relative to targets amplify (dilute) the spillover effects on suppliers. The results are robust to the alternative hypotheses of latent industry effects on suppliers and stock picking by activist investors.

By linking sell‐side equity analysts to their deed records and LinkedIn profiles, I show that analysts with higher exposure to negative wealth shocks issue more pessimistic and less accurate forecasts. The effects are stronger when analysts have higher leverage in their homes and face career concerns. I also find that stocks recommended by exposed analysts underperform those of nonexposed counterparts, by an amount that is significant and economically large in magnitude. The results remain robust to unobserved skill differences, the potential endogeneity of housing prices, the self‐selection of analysts into neighborhoods with certain traits, and placebo tests where housing wealth shocks are randomized across analysts. Collectively, this study provides new evidence on if and how personal wealth shocks impact analysts' work productivity and forecast behavior.

We examine whether financing commitments from a target firm’s financial advisor, in the form of stapled financing, provide certification of target value. Using a data set of leveraged buyouts spanning 2002–2011, and addressing endogeneity issues, we find that stapled financing has significant positive effects on sellers’ shareholder wealth, especially for targets suffering from greater adverse selection. Stapled financing facilitates deal financing by allowing buyers to obtain lower-cost and longer-maturity debt, and it is positively associated with bidding intensity. Investment banks offering stapled financing appear to trade off higher expected advisory fees against loss of lending efficiency ex post.

Is the decision to go public or private a stock-market-driven “sideshow” or does it have significant effects on investment and profitability? We address this issue using a comprehensive data set of private and public companies in the U.K. during 1996–2006. Firms with high investment-financing needs, lower information-production costs, and high industry market-to-book ratios are more likely to go public. In contrast to the literature, we find that capital investment and profitability increase substantially after the initial public offering (IPO). Consistent with the agency-cost-based theories of going private, firms decrease investment but increase profits after going private, especially firms bought out by private equity investors. Our analysis also highlights the effects of market conditions on the ownership structure decision.

We examine the product market spillover effects of hedge fund activism (HFA) on the industry rivals of target firms. HFA has negative real and stockholder wealth effects on the average rival firm. The effects on rivals' product market performance is commensurate with post-activism improvements in target's productivity, cost and capital allocation efficiency, and product differentiation. Financially constrained rivals accommodate these improvements but those facing high intervention threat respond effectively to them. The spillover effects are strengthened in less concentrated and low entry barrier industries. The results are robust to the alternative hypothesis of strategic target selection by hedge funds.

We theoretically and empirically address the endogeneity of corporate ownership structure and the cost of debt, with a novel emphasis on the role of control concentration in post-default firm restructuring. Control concentration raises agency costs of debt, and dominant shareholders trade off private benefits of control against higher borrowing costs in choosing their ownership stakes. Based on our theoretical predictions, and using an international sample of syndicated loans and unique dynamic ownership structure data, we present new evidence on the firm- and macro-level determinants of corporate control concentration and the cost of debt.

Industry competition shocks are major drivers of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We document strong positive effects of competition shocks on M&A-related covenant redesign. Acquiring firms in high-competition environments are significantly more likely to undertake tender offer bond repurchases and reduce restrictions on mergers, investments, payouts, and financing, but increase change-in-control covenants. This effect is stronger for larger, more profitable firms. Moreover, announcement returns from M&A transactions of redesigning firms in more competitive settings are significantly higher, while acquisition deal premiums are lower. Our study shows the significant effect of industry competition shocks on debt recontracting in M&A.

Using microlevel panel data and a difference-in-differences identification strategy, we study the effect of political uncertainty on household stock market participation. We find that households significantly reduce their participation and reallocate funds to safer assets during periods of increased political uncertainty prior to gubernatorial elections. The decline in participation is related to households’ response to elevated asset risk and their incentive to hedge increased labor income risk. In situations where uncertainty remains high after elections, pre-election reduction in participation is only partially reversed.