Abstract Hedge fund activists transfer relevant prior work experience to their activism campaigns. Categorizing activists based on past employment at investment banks (generalists), private equity or special situations partnerships (specialists), or other firms (nonfinancial experts), we relate activists’ prior work experience to their choices and outcomes. Both generalists with codifiable skills and specialists with tacit skills contribute to successful outcomes, but differences in these skills lead to differences in activism processes. Activist choices, market responses, target firm responses, and procedural aspects of activism vary with activist identity. Our analysis examines activists’ heterogeneous skills and highlights their importance in shaping activist interventions.

Many US states have a single cutoff date for school entry, meaning that some children are older than others when they begin kindergarten. We show that this variation in birth months is associated with differences in adult labor market outcomes in the mutual fund industry. Relatively older managers (i.e., those born just after the cutoff) make better stock selections, and their funds outperform their younger peers’ funds by 0.48% per annum. This difference is linked to increased confidence. Survey respondents judge relatively older managers as appearing more confident in photographs, and these managers display more confident behavior: making larger bets, window dressing their holdings less, and securing more fund flows conditional on performance.

ABSTRACT We study compensation contracts of individual portfolio managers using hand‐collected data of over 4,500 U.S. mutual funds. Variations in the compensation structures are broadly consistent with an optimal contracting equilibrium. The likelihood of explicit performance‐based incentives is positively correlated with the intensity of agency conflicts, as proxied by the advisor's clientele dispersion, its affiliations in the financial industry, and its ownership structure. Investor sophistication and the threat of dismissal in outsourced funds serve as substitutes for explicit performance‐based incentives. Finally, we find little evidence of differences in future performance associated with any particular compensation arrangement.

Abstract We examine the role of peer (e.g., Lipper manager indices) versus pure (e.g., S&P 500) benchmarks in fund manager compensation. We model their impact on manager incentives and then test those predictions using novel data. We find that 71% of managers are compensated based on peer benchmarks. Consistent with the model, peer-benchmarked fund managers exhibit higher effort generating higher gross performance and collect higher fee income. Analyzing advisors’ choice between benchmark types, we show that peer-benchmarking advisors cater to more sophisticated and performance-sensitive investors, and are more likely to sell through direct channels, consistent with investor heterogeneity and market segmentation.