Exploiting the staggered removal of short-sale bans in China, we document unintended real effects of allowing short selling in an emerging market featured by concentrated ownership and weak investor protection. Pilot firms have worse short-term and long-term market performances after the removal of short-sale bans. Additionally, pilot firms undertake less risk and have worse performance following the launch of the program. The effect is stronger when controlling shareholders' private benefit is large and when corporate governance is weak. Faced with increased short selling threats, pilot firms cut capital investments and R&D expenditures, reduce equity financing, and lower debt ratios. Contrary to prior studies showing that short selling encourages value-enhancing risky investments in developed markets, our findings suggest that in emerging markets such as China, short selling can result in value losses by inducing firms to forgo profitable risky projects.

Using hand-collected CEO education data of 3574 CEOs over the period of 2000 to 2015, we document that CEOs are significantly more likely to acquire targets that are headquartered in those states where the CEOs received their undergraduate and graduate degrees. Education-state deals are larger, have higher completion rates, and exist with both public and private targets. Acquirers pay a lower target premium for education-state deals and the cumulative abnormal announcement returns are positive. The combined evidence suggests that education-state acquisitions are more likely to be driven by bidder CEO's information advantage toward firms headquartered in the education state.

Exploiting the staggered adoption of universal demand (UD) laws as exogenous shocks to filing derivative lawsuits, we find that weakened shareholder litigation rights cause a significant increase in the cost of debt. Deteriorated corporate governance, increased information asymmetry, and heightened managerial risk-taking are the underlying channels. Shareholders respond to weakened litigation rights by providing managers with less risk-taking incentives. Overall, our findings suggest that the shareholder litigation rights are important to debtholders.

Using hand-collected data on CEO noncompete agreements (NCAs), we find that NCAs are less common when CEOs expect to incur greater personal costs from reduced job mobility and more common when firms expect to suffer greater economic harm if departing CEOs leave to work for a competitor. Additionally, turnover-performance sensitivity is stronger when CEOs have NCAs. Finally, total compensation and incentive pay are higher if CEOs have more enforceable NCAs. Our identification strategy exploits staggered state-level changes in NCA enforceability. Overall, our findings suggest that restrictions on job mobility have important implications for how CEOs are monitored and compensated.

Using the extreme returns of firms in unrelated industries of institutional shareholders' portfolios as exogenous variations in institutional investor distraction (Kempf et al. 2017), we find a positive and significant relation between institutional shareholder distraction and stock price crash risk. The effect is associated with weakened monitoring, and it becomes stronger when alternative corporate governance is weaker and when managers' incentives to hoard bad information are stronger. Managers reduce firms' accounting conservatism when institutional investors become distracted, which is evidence of an increased motivation to hoard bad news. Overall, our findings shed additional light on the important monitoring role of institutional investors in corporate governance.