We study shareholder proposals across a period of substantial activity and find systematic differences both across sponsor identity and across time. To measure the success of shareholder activism, we examine voting outcomes and short-term market reactions conditioned on proposal type and sponsor identity. The voting analysis documents that sponsor identity, issue type, prior performance and time period are important influences on the voting outcome. Proposals sponsored by institutions or coordinated groups appear to act as substitutes gaining substantially more support than proposals sponsored by individuals. The nature of the stock market reaction, while typically small, varies according to the issue and the sponsor identity.

We propose and test the hypothesis that trading by institutional investors contributes to serial correlation in daily returns. Our results demonstrate that NYSE particles and individual security daily return autocorrelationsare an increasing function of the level of institutional ownership. Moreover, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that institutional trading reflects information and increases the speed of price adjustment. The relation between autocorrelation and institutional holdings does not, however, apparent to be driven by market frictions or rational time-varying required rates of return. We conclude that institutional investors correlated trading patterns contribute to axial correlation in daily returns.

We hypothesize that the well-documented negativity bias, the psychological tendency to asymmetrically emphasize negative over positive aspects, can help explain several financial market phenomena: why most individuals hold strongly bearish views of both short- and long-term equity return distributions, why individuals exhibit heterogeneous beliefs, and the stock market participation puzzle. Using variation in the perceived risk of mortality from the swine flu pandemic as our primary proxy for an individual's negativity bias, we find strong support for our hypothesis even when controlling for alternative mechanisms including optimism, risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and anxiety.

We investigate whether institutional investors “vote with their feet” when dissatisfied with a firm's management by examining changes in equity ownership around forced CEO turnover. We find that aggregate institutional ownership and the number of institutional investors decline in the year prior to forced CEO turnover. However, selling by institutions is far from universal. Overall, there is an increase in shareholdings of individual investors and a decrease in holdings of institutional investors who are more concerned with holding prudent securities, are better informed, or are engaged in momentum trading. Measures of institutional ownership changes are negatively related to the likelihoods of forced CEO turnover and that an executive from outside the firm is appointed CEO.

Using transactions generally overlooked in the compensation literature—joint ventures, strategic alliances, seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), and spin-offs—we find that, beyond compensation for increases in firm size or complexity, chief executive officers (CEOs) are rewarded for their deal-making activities. Boards pay CEOs for the core motivation of the deal, as well as for deal volume. We find that compensating for volume instead of core value creation occurs under weak board monitoring and that in deal-making firms, neither CEO turnover nor pay-for-performance responds to underperformance. We introduce an input monitoring explanation for these results: boards compensate for deal volume because of their inability to perfectly monitor outputs.

Because sell-side analysts are dependent on institutional investors for performance ratings and trading commissions, we argue that analysts are less likely to succumb to investment banking or brokerage pressure in stocks highly visible to institutional investors. Examining a comprehensive sample of analyst recommendations over the 1994–2000 period, we find that analysts’ recommendations relative to consensus are positively associated with investment banking relationships and brokerage pressure but negatively associated with the presence of institutional investor owners. The presence of institutional investors is also associated with more accurate earnings forecasts and more timely re-ratings following severe share price falls.