Previous studies show that economic policy uncertainty has been rising steadily since the 1960s (Baker et al. 2014), and that this secular increase has led to harmful economic outcomes such as reduced investment rates (Gulen and Ion 2016). Other studies find that politically connected directors play a unique role in corporate decision making and firm valuation (Goldman, Rocholl, and So 2009). We combine these two lines of research to examine the ability of politically experienced directors (PEDs) to mitigate the harmful investment effects of policy uncertainty. Our results show that the presence of at least one PED on a company board reduces the sensitivity of investment decisions to policy uncertainty by 49% relative to firms without PEDs. These results are stronger when the PED serves on a presidential (as opposed to legislative) committee, and among firms most vulnerable to investment irreversibility. We explore omitted variables bias and instrumental variable estimation in robustness testing to alleviate endogeneity concerns. Overall, our findings align with the theoretical framework of Pastor and Veronesi (2013) and real options theory, and confirm that PEDs can significantly reduce the harmful effects of policy uncertainty.

We study how firms build relations with local governments in emerging markets without established rules of political lobbying. We document that following a turnover of the Party Secretary or mayor of a city in China, firms (especially privately owned enterprises, POEs hereafter) headquartered in that city significantly increase their “perk spending,” for example, expenses for travel and entertainment among others. Both the instrumental-variable-based results and heterogeneity analysis are consistent with the interpretation that the perk spending is used to build relations with local governments. In addition, we find that local political turnover in a city tends to be followed by changes of the Chairmen or the CEOs of state-owned enterprises that are controlled by the local government. We also discuss and rule out several alternative explanations for the above findings.

We examine the impact of lifetime work experience of top executives on mergers and acquisitions (M&As) behavior and outcome. Based on hand-collected data of top executives in a sample of Chinese firms during 2002–2018, we construct a generalist ability index of top executives to study the impact of generalist top executives (GTEs) vs. specialist top executives (STEs) on M&As. Our findings suggest that GTEs conduct more M&As than those of STEs. The results are robust to alternate specifications of M&A frequencies and after accounting for endogeneity issue. Furthermore, the M&A announcement and long-term returns are better for acquirers with GTEs than those with STEs. We attribute the findings to GTEs' ability of searching target ex ante, making the M&A process efficient, and fully leveraging their social networks post M&A. In addition, we find the increase in M&A activities in GTE firms are primarily due to GTEs' experience of M&As rather than their talents. Finally, the M&As from GTEs improve investment efficiency and are less likely to divest targets post M&As. In sum, GTEs conduct more M&As and they create value in the process.

Can social norms give rise to distorted information in China? We observe that China’s leading social norm related to alcohol consumption and social drinking enhances earnings management. An analysis of toxic alcohol scandals supports a causal interpretation. Further evidence suggests that the influence of alcohol may come from the negative externality that it creates, which is propagated by corporate leaders and cannot be attenuated by market-oriented institutions. Our results reveal a social norm externality that may have important normative implications.

There is an ongoing debate over uniformity versus flexibility in accounting regulation. This study examines the financial reporting consequences of a rigid accounting rule in China under which the fiscal year-end is uniform for all companies. Using extensive interviews together with large-sample archival analyses, we find that “mismatched” firms—those whose mandated financial reporting cycles are not aligned with their business cycles—exhibit higher levels of absolute abnormal accruals than their nonmismatched counterparts. Further analyses suggest that the negative association between mismatching and financial reporting quality is mainly driven by unintentional estimation errors rather than intentional earnings manipulation. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.