We model an investment bank's choice of resource allocation by the probability of acquirers' mergers and acquisitions frequency in the future to theoretically link the role of investment banks to the acquirer returns. Our model predicts the heterogeneity in the quality of advisory services provided by the same investment bank that leads to the heterogeneity in acquirer returns. Such heterogeneity declines as the likelihood of an industry merger wave rises. Controlling for investment bank fixed effects, acquirer fixed effects and potential self-selection bias, we find empirical evidence supporting our hypotheses.

Our research suggests that firms condition their CSR policies on the availability of economic resources. Using the value of a firm's real estate as a measure of exogenous shocks on the firm's economic resources, we show that increases in resources reduce CSR concerns, while decreases in resources increase CSR concerns. The relative impact of resource availability on CSR concerns, however, depends on several organizational variables that influence a firm's preferences for CSR investments. Furthermore, we show that firm reactions to increases and decreases in resources are not symmetric: resource gains reduce CSR concerns, but resource losses increase CSR concerns even more markedly. Overall, these results suggest that firms may treat CSR decisions in much the same way as other investment decisions.

In the presence of high uncertainty and limited experience, can observing the actions of other acquiring predecessors help firms make better acquisition decisions? Using a sample of cross-border M&As conducted by US acquirers in developing countries, we document a positive and significant relationship between an acquirer's performance and its predecessors' acquisition activity. This relationship is especially pronounced in the prevalence of news events about the outcome of predecessors' acquisitions, when predecessors consist of US peers from the same industry and/or when targets are based in culturally distant countries. Our findings shed light on one channel through which information spillovers across industries and acquiring firms could be a key driver of value creation in developing market cross-border M&As.

We show that firms led by politically partisan CEOs are associated with a higher level of corporate tax sheltering than firms led by nonpartisan CEOs. Specifically, Republican CEOs are associated with more corporate tax sheltering even when their wealth is not tied with that of shareholders and when corporate governance is weak, suggesting that their tax sheltering decisions could be driven by idiosyncratic factors such as their political ideology. We also show that Democratic CEOs are associated with more corporate tax sheltering only when their stock-based incentives are high, suggesting that their tax sheltering decisions are more likely to be driven by economic incentives. In sum, our results support the political connection hypothesis in general but highlight that the specific factors driving partisan CEOs' tax sheltering behaviors differ. Our results imply that it may cost firms more to motivate Democratic CEOs to engage in more tax sheltering activities because such decisions go against their political beliefs regarding tax policies.