The evidence in this paper suggests that downgrades by both Moody's and Standard and Poor's are associated with negative abnormal stock returns in the two-day window beginning the day of the press release by the rating agency. Significant negative abnormal performance can still be detected after eliminating observations containing obvious concurrent (potentially contaminating) news releases. There is little evidence of abnormal performance on announcement of an upgrade. Significant abnormal returns are associated with announcements of additions to the Standard and Poor's Credit Watch List, if either a potential downgrade or a potential upgrade is indicated.

This paper documents the effects of large (block) transactions on the prices of common stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We examine whether mean temporary and permanent price effects associated with large and small transactions differ and whether the price effects vary cross-sectionally according to the size of the block. Alternative definitions of block size are investigated – percentage of the equity traded, block volume in relation to normal trading volume, and dollar value of the block. The results suggest that price effects are predominantly temporary for seller-initiated transactions and permanent for buyer-initiated transactions.

We examine the accounting and market performance of reverse leveraged buyouts (i.e., firms making their first public offering after previously completing a leveraged buyout). On average, the accounting performance of these firms is significantly better than their industries at the time of the initial public offering (IPO) and for at least the following four years, though there is some evidence of a decline in performance. Cross-sectional variation in accounting performance subsequent to the IPO is related to changes in the equity ownership of both operating management and other insiders, and is unrelated to changes in leverage. Finally, there is no evidence of abnormal common stock performance after the reverse leveraged buyout.

We find that measures of board and ownership structure explain a significant amount of cross-sectional variation in CEO compensation, after controlling for standard economic determinants of pay. Moreover, the signs of the coefficients on the board and ownership structure variables suggest that CEOs earn greater compensation when governance structures are less effective. We also find that the predicted component of compensation arising from these characteristics of board and ownership structure has a statistically significant negative relation with subsequent firm operating and stock return performance. Overall, our results suggest that firms with weaker governance structures have greater agency problems; that CEOs at firms with greater agency problems receive greater compensation; and that firms with greater agency problems perform worse.