We study the role of regional cultural differences in M&A transactions in the U.S. A larger social trust distance between two companies reduces the likelihood of them combining via an M&A transaction and results in lower completion rates and longer completion times, indicating higher complexity in deal execution. However, a larger social trust distance is also associated with higher gains from mergers, as measured by acquirer and combined announcement returns and medium-term buy-and-hold abnormal returns. This suggests that for these announced deals, the synergy potential is high enough to offset the costs induced by the large cultural distance.

We propose that firms use stock splits as a means of attracting attention and inducing information production to correct price distortion caused by investors’ 52-week high anchoring bias. Our analysis shows that firms are more likely to split stocks when their prices are near 52-week highs, especially if they are highly profitable and undervalued. After splits, undervaluation gradually disappears. Moreover, these splits are associated with a slower market reaction and a more positive post-split drift, consistent with the notion that investors’ anchoring bias hinders price adjustment, leading to a gradual price correction. In addition, the likelihood of such splits increases with CEO wealth-performance sensitivity, and investment-price sensitivity increases following splits. Our evidence suggests that firms utilize stock splits to correct mispricing induced by investors’ 52-week high anchoring bias.