We show that mutual funds worldwide provide substantial international exposure through their domestic holdings of multinationals. The international exposure of domestic funds increases, on average, by 32 percentage points when we consider international corporate diversification. We find that funds with higher indirect international exposure perform better in both the cross-section and the time series. This effect is primarily driven by the fund managers’ ability to invest in multinationals, rather than the performance of those multinationals. Our findings support the hypothesis that international diversification from multinationals reduces the transaction and information costs of investing abroad.

There is a discrepancy between CAPM-implied and realized returns. Using the CAPM in capital budgeting—as recommended in textbooks—should thus have real effects. For instance, low beta projects should be valued more by CAPM users than by the market. We test this hypothesis using M&A data and show that bids for low-beta private targets entail lower bidder returns. We provide further support by testing several ancillary predictions. Our analyses suggest that using the CAPM when valuing targets leads to valuation errors (relative to the market’s view) corresponding on average to 12% to 33% of the deal values.

The institutional brokerage industry faces an ever-increasing pressure to lower trading costs, which has already driven down average commissions and shifted volume toward low-cost execution venues. However, traditional full-service brokers that bundle execution with services remain a force and their commissions are still considerably higher than the marginal cost of trade execution. We hypothesize that commissions constitute a convenient way of charging a prearranged fixed fee for long-term access to a broker’s premium services. We derive testable predictions based on this hypothesis and test them on a large sample of institutional trades from 1999 to 2003. We find that institutions negotiate commissions infrequently, and thus commissions vary little with trade characteristics. Institutions also concentrate their order flow with a relatively small set of brokers, with smaller institutions concentrating their trading more than large institutions and paying higher per-share commissions. These results are stable over time, are consistent with our predictions, and cannot be explained by cost-minimization alone. Finally, we discuss the evolution of the institutional brokerage market within the proposed framework and make informal predictions about future developments in the industry.

We study the efficiency of dynamic portfolio choices using the nonparametric methods of Dybvig (1988) and Post (2003). We compare a dynamic portfolio task against an equivalent static Arrow-Debreu problem under two alternative environments: (1) nonpooled with 2^T terminal states and (2) pooled with T+1 unique terminal states. The results suggest that, within each environment, efficiency is lower in a static format and when the number of final states is larger. In the nonpooled dynamic task, which allows for path dependent strategies, we find that a form of stop-loss strategy drives efficiency losses.

We test the hypothesis that foreign direct investment promotes corporate governance spillovers in the host country. Using firm-level data from 64 countries during the period 2005–2014, we find that cross-border M&A activity is associated with subsequent improvements in the governance of nontarget firms when the acquirer country has stronger investor protection than the target country. The effect is more pronounced when the target industry is more competitive. Cross-border M&As are also associated with increases in investment and valuation of nontarget firms. Alternative explanations, such as access to global financial markets and cultural similarities, do not appear to explain our findings. Received October 27, 2015; editorial decision March 25, 2018 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

This paper challenges the widely accepted stylized fact that chief executive officers (CEOs) in the United States are paid significantly more than their foreign counterparts. Using CEO pay data across fourteen countries with mandated pay disclosures, we show that the U.S. pay premium is economically modest and primarily reflects the performance-based pay demanded by institutional shareholders and independent boards. Indeed, we find no significant difference in either level of CEO pay or the use of equity-based pay between U.S. and non-U.S. firms exposed to international and U.S. capital, product, and labor markets. We also show that U.S. and non-U.S. CEO pay has largely converged in the 2000s.