This paper analyzes informed trading in acquiring firms through (stock) merger announcements. We show that pre-announcement abnormal option volumes in acquiring firms strongly increase ahead of a stock merger (by approximately 300%). Furthermore, we show that the direction of option trades (puts or calls) prior to an announcement can predict post-announcement stock returns. Our results also indicate that higher wealth-to-performance sensitivities of top executives are related to higher abnormal put than call option trading before stock merger announcements. Overall, our results support the view that top executives have a hedging motive. They tend to purchase protection against, e.g., confounding (negative) information policies and/or empire-building mergers with negative NPVs, in order to avoid short-term salary losses (lower bonuses, lower stock options, etc.).

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) are shells initiated with the sole intent of acquiring a single privately held company. SPAC shareholders vote on this acquisition, and in this paper we identify the factors that affect approval probability. Surprisingly, the data indicate more experienced managers and boards do not enhance the probability of deal approval. Similarly, glamor underwriters and larger underwriter syndicates are less likely to be associated with successful SPACs. Further, we find a negative relation between the presence of active investor (hedge funds and private equity funds) shareholdings in a SPAC and approval probability.

Portfolio optimization using private equity is typically based on one of three indices: listed private equity, transaction-based private equity, or appraisal value-based private equity indices. However, we show that none of these indices is fully suitable for portfolio optimization. We introduce here a new benchmark index for venture capital and buyouts, which is updated monthly, adjusted for autocorrelation (de-smoothing), and available contemporaneously. We illustrate how our benchmark enables superior quantitative portfolio optimization.

Governments worldwide spend trillions of dollars on business support programs. This article examines the implications to investors of phasing out one of these subsidy programs. Our setting takes advantage of a unique quasi-natural experiment, where tax subsidies for Canadian Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations (LSVCCs) were phased out in one province but not in others. Using a difference-in-differences setting, we show that fund performance—unrelated to the tax credit—decreased substantially following the enactment of the phase-out. We further show empirically that LSVCC managers continued to charge venture capital-like management fees, despite the fact that their investment strategies become more similar to mutual funds. Our data strongly support the idea that investors in companies and/or funds that unexpectedly lose government support face significant financial costs.