Little is known about the price firms pay for stock repurchases. Using a data set of all U.S. repurchases from 2004 to 2011, we compare the actual average price paid monthly in a repurchase with the average market price for the same stock over various horizons. We find that firms repurchase stock at a significantly lower price than the average market price in all sample years. Less frequent repurchasers, firms that repurchase when insiders buy on their own account, and firms that experience low stock returns prior to the repurchase obtain significantly lower prices. After controlling for risk factors, repurchasing firms earn positive returns. Infrequent repurchasers earn a significantly higher return up to three years following the actual repurchase.

We investigate how corporate governance impacts firm value by comparing the value and use of cash holdings in poorly and well-governed firms. We show that governance has a substantial impact on value through its impact on cash: 1.00 of cash in a poorly governed firm is valued at only 0.42 to $0.88. Good governance approximately doubles this value. Furthermore, we show that firms with poor corporate governance dissipate cash quickly in ways that significantly reduce operating performance. This negative impact of large cash holdings on future operating performance is cancelled out if the firm is well governed.

We study a sample of diversified firms that alter their organizational structure by divesting a business segment. These firms experience a reduction in the diversification discount after the divestiture. We show that the efficiency of segment investment increases substantially following the divestiture and that this improvement is associated with a decrease in the diversification discount. Our results support the corporate focus and financing hypotheses for corporate divestitures. We demonstrate that inefficient investment is partly responsible for the diversification discount and show that asset sales lead to an improvement in the efficiency of investment for remaining divisions.

We investigate how firms weigh the costs and benefits of being public in the decision to opt out of the public market and go private. We draw on previous studies of going private and on the subsequent well-developed theoretical literature on why firms go public to develop our hypotheses. We employ a comprehensive sample of going-private transactions from 1980 to 2004 in the United States and examine how these firms differ over their public life (from IPO to going private) relative to a sample of firms that went and remained public. Our results provide strong support for the importance of information and liquidity considerations in being a public firm. These factors are evident at the IPO, on average thirteen years before the going-private decision. Access to capital and control considerations become increasingly important in the choice of going private over the public life of the firm.

In 2003, a new law required that 40% of Norwegian firms' directors be women—at the time only 9% of directors were women. We use the prequota cross-sectional variation in female board representation to instrument for exogenous changes to corporate boards following the quota. We find that the constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in Tobin's Q over the following years, consistent with the idea that firms choose boards to maximize value. The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.

We track the employment history of over 9,000 managers to study the effects of professional experiences on corporate policies. Our identification strategy exploits exogenous CEO turnovers and employment in other firms and in non-CEO roles. Firms run by CEOs who experienced distress have less debt, save more cash, and invest less than other firms, with stronger effects in poorly governed firms. Experience has a stronger influence when it is more recent or occurs during salient periods in a manager's career. We find similar effects for CFOs. The results suggest that policies vary with managers' experiences and throughout managers' careers.

This paper examines the impact of financial sponsor competition on corporate buyers. We find that corporate acquirers who purchase targets that financial buyers also bid on outperform corporate acquirers who buy targets bid on by corporate firms only. Deal characteristics, acquirer abilities, and observable target characteristics cannot explain this difference in returns. Corporate acquirers have higher returns when they follow a first bid by a financial buyer rather than a first bid by another corporate buyer. The results suggest that financial bidders identify targets with high potential for value improvement and winning corporate bidders are competent in exploiting this potential.

We examine whether constraints on public firms affect firms' efficiency by testing if going private improves plant-level productivity relative to peer control groups. We find that, despite increases in productivity after going private, there is little evidence of efficiency gains relative to peer groups of plants constructed to control for industry, age, size, past productivity, and the endogeneity of the going-private decision. Going-private firms do extensively restructure their portfolio of plants, selling and closing plants more quickly than others. Our findings cast doubt on the view that public markets cause listed firms to operate plants less efficiently due to overinvestment but indicate that going private increases restructuring activity.

Amy Dittmar, Jan Mahrt-Smith, Henri Servaes, International Corporate Governance and Corporate Cash Holdings, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 111-133

Conference at the University of Michigan, and the AFA meetings for helpful comments and suggestions. We would especially like to acknowledge the insights and contributions that Ken Wiles (AppForge, Inc.) has provided to the paper. Anna Danielova and Andras Marosi provided excellent research assistance. Corporate Governance, Incentives, and Industry Consolidations Several changes, such as the advances in information technology and the advent of outsourcing, led to increases in optimal firm size in many fragmented industries over the last decade. This paper studies the determinants of the success of these industry consolidations using a unique sample of firms that were created at the time of their initial public offering: rollup-up IPOs. In these transactions, many small firms merge into a shell company, which goes public at the same time. This sample allows us to follow firms from the day they were established. We find that these firms deliver poor absolute and relative stock returns, on average. Their operating performance mimics that of other firms of the industry, but does not justify to their high initial valuations. However, the average performance hides substantial cross-sectional differences. If