We present evidence that clawback adoptions, by dissuading accruals management, motivate managers to shift capital investment mix from R&D to capex to preserve earnings-based compensation, thereby lowering capital investment efficiency. These effects are more pronounced for firms prone to financial misreporting, which is consistent with board incentives to adopt clawbacks, and with managerial incentives to substitute real for accruals-based earnings management to preserve performance-based compensation. Path analyses lend support to performance-based compensation serving as a channel through which clawback adoptions influence capital investment mix and efficiency. These findings extend and reinterpret prior findings and are timely given the Security and Exchange Commission's newly issued Rule 10D-1 that makes clawback provision adoptions a condition for U.S. exchange listings and explicitly requested “comment on any effect the proposed requirements may have on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.”

We use unique features of the private credit market to examine if and how currency risk impacts firms' financing and whether currency risk is a priced systematic risk at the firm level. We find that currency exposure has a large impact on loan spreads. Decomposing loan spreads, we find that exposure increases the expected default loss premium and that internationalization, growth opportunities, and relationship intensify exposure's impact. Further, exposure exacerbates firms' financing risk by increasing the need for collateral, reducing loan maturity, inducing monitoring and covenant intensity, and influencing syndicate structure. However, exposure does not affect the expected return premium in loan spreads; hence, currency risk does not appear priced in the classical sense and, therefore, should not affect the “true” cost of debt. Our findings imply that while managers should be concerned about exposure's impact on their access to, and terms of, bank financing, they should not adjust hurdle rates on account of exposure when assessing investment projects.

We study whether sibling co-management affects the cost of capital for family firms in China. We find that sibling co-management strongly correlates with a lower cost of capital. We identify three mechanisms through which sibling co-managers (including directors) influence the cost of capital: providing coinsurance, enhancing corporate governance, and facilitating communication with investors. Furthermore, the effect is more pronounced for firms operating in regions with weaker legal environments and firms with auditors from non-Big 4 accounting firms. However, sibling co-management may also hinder external financing due to higher uncertainty during family power transfer periods. In addition, the value of sibling co-management is more salient for financially constrained firms and those in which at least one of the co-manager siblings has a finance background. Overall, the findings suggest that family firms benefit from sibling co-management, resulting in a lower cost of capital, despite the challenges that arise during family power transfer.

Are the professional networks of directors valuable? To separate the effect of director networks on firm value from the effect of other value-relevant director attributes, we use the unexpected deaths of directors as a shock to the director networks of interlocked directors. By studying the announcement returns and using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find the negative shock to director networks reduces the value of interlocked firms – a result that is stronger for firms that are more likely to benefit from access to information from board connections. This evidence is consistent with director networks being valuable and improving access to information.

Using a sample of Chinese firms from 2000 to 2018, we document that hometown firms (firms with hometown chairpersons) engage in less green innovation than non-hometown firms. Evidence suggests that local stakeholders offer hometown chairpersons more protection from environmental consequences than non-hometown chairpersons. We identify two possible mechanisms: government patronage and accommodation by local supply chain partners. Furthermore, we find that the double standards are alleviated with insignificant difference in corporate green innovation when non-hometown chairpersons marry hometown spouses or build local political relationships. Additional analyses suggest that (1) the double standards drive hometown firms to emit more pollutants than non-hometown firms, (2) when a firm is under government scrutiny for environmental issues, located in the city with severe air pollution, or in heavily polluting industries, the adverse effect of a chairperson's hometown on green innovation is minimal, and (3) our findings on green innovation also extend to a decrease in the number of pollutant treatment facilities and treatment capacity in a firm.