This study analyzes foreign exchange (FX) cash flow and equity exposures of a sample of U.S. multinational firms. Focusing on asymmetry in FX cash flow exposures to direction and magnitude of FX shocks, the study finds that asymmetry is pervasive in several alternative measures of FX cash flow exposure. Also, after decomposing FX equity exposures into discount rate and cash flow components, the study documents significant asymmetries in FX discount rate exposures. The latter finding implies that market-related factors in addition to cash flow–based arguments need to be considered when further exploring FX equity exposure. This study also highlights the importance of model specification: models with asymmetric specifications detect more firms with significant FX exposures.

Using a large sample of U.S. small businesses and a new measure of optimism, we examine the role of entrepreneurial optimism in small business lending. We provide evidence that optimistic entrepreneurs are not rationed by lenders. Quite the opposite, our results suggest that they often have better credit accessibility and obtain lower cost of financing. Our results are robust to alternative measures of optimism and controls for private information between lenders and borrowers.

We develop a model to predict expected or normal director compensation. Based on this, we then calculate whether directors of corporate boards are over- or undercompensated. On average, we find greater evidence of over- rather than undercompensation. For companies that overpay, the average excess compensation is greater than $60,000 per director, while directors that are underpaid receive about $33,000 less than predicted. Excess compensation declines over our sample period, which may be consistent with increased director workloads as well as increased scrutiny. We also find that overcompensated directors exacerbate agency problems and lead to reduced CEO turnover sensitivity to performance and a decrease in CEO pay-for-performance sensitivity. Thus, director excess compensation may be a sign of board entrenchment where overcompensated directors are not necessarily focused on protecting shareholder interests.

We examine whether financial analysts strategically time the announcement of their recommendation revisions consistent with their incentives to maintain relations with management. We provide evidence that investor and media attention to recommendation revisions is reduced on weekends, which analysts can exploit to strategically time the release of their revisions. We find that downgrades are a higher proportion of weekend revisions than weekday revisions and that analysts with characteristics that suggest they possess the strongest incentives to maintain favor with management are more likely to downgrade on the weekend. In contrast, analysts absent these characteristics are more likely to release downgrades during the week, consistent with these analysts being driven primarily by other incentives, such as the timely release of their recommendation and garnering media attention. We also present evidence suggesting that strategic disclosure of recommendation downgrades is associated with greater access to management on public earnings conference calls.

We develop and test an ownership structure pecking order. Our ownership pecking order sorts out which structures are likely to have relatively fewer agency costs versus higher agency costs. At the top of the pecking order are firms with a single controlling shareholder, they have the lowest agency costs when that shareholder is not the government. Next is the presence of multiple large shareholders. They are even more effective when the large shareholders are of the same type. The structure with the highest agency costs consists of a single large non-controlling shareholder. Our empirical tests confirm this pecking order.