This paper examines whether firms are able to use acquisitions to ease their financial constraints. The results show that acquisitions do ease financing constraints for constrained acquirers. Relative to unconstrained acquirers, financially constrained firms are more likely to use undervalued equity to fund acquisitions and to target unconstrained and more liquid firms. Using a propensity score matched sample in a difference-in-difference framework, the results show that constrained acquirers become less constrained post-acquisition and relative to matched non-acquiring firms. This improvement is more pronounced for diversifying acquisitions and constrained firms that acquire rather than issue equity and retain the proceeds. Following acquisition, constrained acquirers raise more debt, increase investments, and reduce cash holdings relative to matched non-acquirers, consistent with experiencing reductions in financing constraints. These improvements are not seen for unconstrained acquirers. Finally, the familiar diversification discount is non-existent for financially constrained acquirers.

We examine a potential link between culture and financial development by considering culture's influence on contract enforcement regulation. Specifically, we investigate the role of individualism in determining the variation in enforcement costs across countries. Individualism positively and significantly relates to efficient contract enforcement, an association that is independent of a particular political system. Interaction effects, however, suggest that democracy magnifies individualism's influence on the contract enforcement efficiency. These results provide insight into how culture can shape financial outcomes. It further suggests that culture serves as a constraint on policymakers, as any given policy or formal institutional structure will function very differently depending on the cultural environment.

The economic impact of corporate self-dealing and the regulation against such activity both vary across countries. In this work, we examine the influence of trust on shareholder protection. We hypothesize that anonymous trust can affect self-dealing through two channels. First, trust may complement existing formal regulation. Alternatively, trust and formal regulation can act as substitutes. To test these hypotheses, we examine the association between a country's anti-self-dealing index and anonymous trust. We find that anonymous trust inversely relates to formal self-dealing regulation. We further find that anonymous trust positively relates to financial market development. Collectively, this evidence suggests that trust substitutes for formal self-dealing regulation, providing an alternative mechanism for shareholder protection.

We find that individualistic countries regulate insider trading activities more intensely. The result is robust to controlling for alternative culture variables, additional controls, and instrumental variable analysis. We also document that individualism's effect is magnified in democratic countries. In addition, we study the economic and financial consequences of individualism, insider trading regulation, and its enforcement. The analysis suggests that individualism and the enforcement of insider trading regulation promote financial development. Interaction effects reveal that individualism and insider trading regulation serve as complements to promote financial development. These findings contribute to the insider trading debate since regulation alone may not be the primary determinant of market efficiency. Combined, our results challenge prior works concluding that individualism is anti-regulation.

U.S. firms currently hold a $2trillion cash stockpile. We examine if cash stockpiles fuel cash acquisitions by studying the method of payment decision for cash-rich firms. Surprisingly, cash-rich firms are 23% less likely to make cash bids than stock bids, relative to firms that are not cash rich. We examine several potential explanations related to omitted variable bias and endogeneity and the result remains. More specifically, the results are robust to explanations related to agency, financial constraints, tax-related explanations, equity overvaluation, and capital structure. Our evidence implies that the link between cash stockpiles and cash acquisitions is not obvious.

Motivated by recent changes to corporate governance standards around the world, we use a regulatory shock that substantially altered the governance structure for some firms to shed light on the long-term impact of mandates that are of global interest. Firms affected by this shock had lower values and non-mandated governance practices that were less shareholder friendly before the mandates were in effect when compared to unaffected matched peers. In the post-mandate period, we document a 48% tightening of the relative value gap, and show that this gap relates to the continued use of less shareholder friendly non-mandated governance practices. Our results suggest that governance mandates can tighten, but not eliminate, the value gap between poorly and well governed firms, and that firms affected by the shock continue to have less shareholder friendly governance cultures long after regulatory intervention.