In the spirit of the Bonding Hypothesis proposed by Stulz (1999) and Coffee (1999, 2002), I find that foreign firms that cross-list in the U.S. and undertake IPOs are more likely to employ reputable underwriters if the firms come from countries with poor shareholder protection. The additional monitoring provided by reputable underwriters may help overcome the skepticism of U.S. investors, and partially explains the higher valuation these firms obtain after the offering. There is, however, a price to pay for this bonding benefit. I find that issuers from countries with weaker shareholder protection tend to be more underpriced if they are sponsored by prestigious underwriters.

We examine the voting behavior of Registered Investment Funds (Mutual Funds, ETFs and Close-end Funds) on Hedge Funds proposals, a common vehicle of value-driven shareholder activism. We compare the support rates of Registered Funds versus other voting shareholders on different types of proposals set up for voting at shareholders meetings and explore fund-level characteristics that may explain the variation in support rates. Our results show that Registered Funds support rates on Hedge Fund proposals vary depending on the proposal category. In general, the support rates of Registered Funds are about 4 percentage points lower compared to other investors. However, that difference rises to 10 p.p. for proposals that are more confrontational to the incumbent management of the target company. Interestingly, the average lower support rates of Registered Funds are driven by the ten largest funds. On the contrary, Registered Funds from smaller parent groups tend to be more supportive of Hedge Fund activism. We document a 18 p.p. reduction in the probability of favorable votes on Hedge Fund proposals by the largest Registered Funds compared to smaller funds. Our results suggest that the growing ownership in public companies by large Registered Funds reduces the overall support of shareholder activism through Hedge Fund proposals.

We examine whether and how an exogenous shock to the information environment changes insiders’ ability to learn from outsiders. We document three main findings. First, we find an increase in investment‐to‐price sensitivity following the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Second, we show that the relation between the market reaction to M&A deal announcements and the likelihood of deal completion becomes stronger after IFRS adoption. Third, we find significant improvements in post‐acquisition operating and stock return performance post‐IFRS adoption. These results are more pronounced for firms that experienced significant increases in foreign institutional ownership around IFRS adoption, especially when these foreign investors are from countries that matter for the firm’s growth opportunities. Taken together, our findings suggest that insiders’ ability to learn from outsiders improves post‐IFRS, and this improved ability to learn from outsiders leads to real economic gains.

We examine the impact of the enactment of the Market Abuse Directive (MAD) and the Prospectus Directive (PD) across 18 EU countries on seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we document a significant reduction in earnings management, improved post-SEO stock return performance, and a decline in the adverse reaction to SEO announcements following the enactment of MAD. We find similar, albeit weaker, results post-PD. The impact is stronger in countries with high ex-ante institutional quality. Our results suggest that the enactment of these directives leads to improvements in information quality, which reduces information asymmetry around SEOs.