Knowledge that Transforms

Firms led by older CEOs invest less, but the mechanism behind this age–investment gradient remains unclear. We study how CEO age shapes investment evaluation by eliciting CEOs' ratings of a project's investment attractiveness in a large-scale scenario-based experiment with more than 3700 CEOs from owner-managed Danish firms. Our design provides direct evidence on CEOs' investment evaluations by separating baseline differences in investment attractiveness from sensitivity to risk moments and payout horizon. Each CEO evaluates randomized capital-budgeting scenarios relative to the status quo, allowing us to distinguish a baseline shift in willingness to view projects as compelling from age differences in responsiveness to risk characteristics and payout horizon. We document a pronounced negative association between CEO age and investment attractiveness. Holding expected IRR, variance, skewness, and payout horizon constant, CEOs aged 60 or older rate the same opportunities as less attractive, while age differences in sensitivity to these attributes are weak. Standard stated risk attitudes and a lottery measure show no systematic age pattern. For external validity, we construct a CEO-specific inaction propensity from the experiment—the residual tendency to rate otherwise identical projects as less attractive after accounting for project characteristics—and show that it predicts lower investment in administrative data. Including this measure attenuates the reduced-form age–investment association, suggesting that age-related investment declines are not readily explained by conventional risk preferences or investment horizons alone, but also reflect a broader residual tendency towards lower investment propensity.

This research examines the relationship between co-opted boards and firms' anti-takeover provisions (ATPs). Analyzing 5585 US firm-year observations for the period 2012–2022, we document a positive relationship between co-opted boards and ATPs. We further illustrate that the positive relationship is stronger in firms that exhibit subpar performance and compensate senior executives and directors more than the industry average. Furthermore, our research finds that good governance, board and executive gender diversity, gender equality, and board cultural diversity moderate the positive relationship between co-opted boards and ATPs. Our results remain robust across a battery of tests. The findings of this research have important implications for corporate boards and managers. The study contributes to the mainstream agency theory by demonstrating that co-opted boards exacerbate firms' agency problems by blocking the potential of external disciplinary mechanisms.

We examine the effects of time-limited disclosure relief under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012. The Act grants newly public firms up to five years of exemptions, and our results suggest that the fixed duration of this relief, as much as its availability, shapes post-IPO behavior. Using an intention-to-treat design, we compare treated firms with smaller reporting companies whose exemptions are similar but carry no fixed expiry date. Equity issuance by treated firms increases significantly as the deadline nears while debt issuance declines, and cash reserves accumulate over the period. Capital expenditure increases relative to controls in the early post-IPO years, while R&D shows no differential response. As expiry approaches, the differential with the control group in internal investment weakens but cash-financed acquisitions accelerate. This shift in investment composition coincides with deteriorating operating performance and declining market valuations relative to IPO levels. Our post-expiry analysis reveals an abrupt reversal in acquisition activity upon transition to full disclosure while internal investment remains unchanged, supporting the argument that pre-expiry behavior was driven by the regulatory timeline rather than natural firm maturation. We conclude that the duration of regulatory relief is as important as its scope in shaping corporate behavior, and that time-limited exemptions from mandatory disclosure can induce anticipatory firm responses that work against the policy's intended objectives.