Blockholding multiple firms within an industry generates an information advantage for institutional investors, who can better differentiate between the industry-wide and firm-specific nature of bad news released by peer firms and avoid selling on false spillover signals (i.e., “smart exit”). Empirically, we document that industry common ownership reduces future firm-level stock price crash risk. Our results can be explained by the attenuated spillover from industry peers' firm-specific bad news, as a complement to the monitoring effect that reduces the focal firm's hoarding of bad news. Our results suggest that the presence of industry common owners provides a stabilizing effect against stock price contagion.

Using a large panel of more than 140,000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs), this study examines SOEs’ investment behavior surrounding 82 national elections in 25 European countries between 2001 and 2015. We find that SOEs increase their corporate investment by about 29% of the sample average during national election years. This effect is more pronounced in fixed timing and closely contested elections. The effect is also stronger in countries with low institutional quality, more centralized political systems, and state-controlled banking systems. In contrast, we find the matched non-SOEs significantly decrease their corporate investment during national election years.

We investigate stock tail risk around national elections worldwide over the period of 1982–2012. We find that firm stock is less likely to crash during the election years, and is more likely to crash during the post-election period. This inter-temporal pattern is consistent with the suppression of negative information when there is heightened political uncertainty around elections and with the subsequent release of adverse news when the uncertainty is reduced. Further analysis shows that the impact of political uncertainty on tail risk is stronger in countries with poorer investor protection, fewer electoral checks and balances, more uncertain election outcomes and pro-business incumbent governments, in industries which are more politically sensitive, and in firms with larger information asymmetry.

Institutional cross-owners, specifically institutional investors with significant stakes in multiple firms in the same industry, are becoming increasingly common in the United States. In this paper, we investigate and find that the presence of institutional cross-owners facilitates a firm's financing of its investment opportunities, consistent with institutional cross-owners reducing the adverse selection concerns of those who provide capital for the investment opportunities. We then examine the conditions under which the presence of institutional cross-owners is likely to more significantly reduce adverse selection and thereby have even more of a positive effect on the financing of investment opportunities. We document that relative to transient institutional cross-owners, dedicated institutional cross-owners facilitate more financing of investment opportunities. We also find that institutional cross-owners facilitate the financing of investment opportunities even more for firms with greater dependence on external financing, those with an opaque financial reporting environment, and those with more product market competition. Our paper offers novel insight into how a firm can benefit from the presence of institutional cross-owners.

We examine whether international equity mutual fund managers shift their portfolios toward stocks with higher financial reporting quality (FRQ) during periods of high political uncertainty. Our study is motivated by two primary factors. First, prior research shows evidence of fund managers’ “flight to quality” (e.g., to less risky securities) during periods of uncertainty. Second, recent theoretical research concludes that stocks with higher FRQ are assessed as less sensitive to systematic risk (such as political uncertainty). We employ national elections as exogenous increases in systematic risk in the local markets and accordingly use an international sample of mutual funds that focus on local markets. We find that mutual fund managers shift their equity holdings to stocks with higher FRQ during election periods when political uncertainty is higher. Such a flight‐to‐quality effect is less pronounced for elections with larger expected electoral margins in the pre‐election period (i.e., when the incumbent is more likely to win the election) and for countries with higher transactions costs. In contrast, the effect is more pronounced when governments have greater involvement in the local economy. Our inferences are robust to alternative proxies for political uncertainty and FRQ and to numerous other sensitivity analyses.

Prior research shows that financial reporting quality (FRQ) is positively related to investment efficiency for large U.S. publicly traded companies. We examine the role of FRQ in private firms from emerging markets, a setting in which extant research suggests that FRQ would be less conducive to the mitigation of investment inefficiencies. Earlier studies show that private firms have lower FRQ, presumably because of lower market demand for public information. Prior research also shows that FRQ is lower in countries with low investor protection, bank-oriented financial systems, and stronger conformity between tax and financial reporting rules. Using firm-level data from the World Bank, our empirical evidence suggests that FRQ positively affects investment efficiency. We further find that the relation between FRQ and investment efficiency is increasing in bank financing and decreasing in incentives to minimize earnings for tax purposes. Such a connection between tax-minimization incentives and the informational role of earnings has often been asserted in the literature. We provide explicit evidence in this regard.