Proxy advisory firms have become important players in corporate governance, but the extent of their influence over shareholder votes is debated. We estimate the effect of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) recommendations on voting outcomes by exploiting exogenous variation in ISS recommendations generated by a cutoff rule in ISS voting guidelines. Using a regression discontinuity design, we find that from 2010 to 2011, a negative ISS recommendation on a say-on-pay proposal leads to a 25 percentage point reduction in say-on-pay voting support, suggesting a strong influence over shareholder votes. We also use our setting to examine the informational role of ISS recommendations. Received April 13, 2015; editorial decision June 13, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

After exogenous demand shocks caused by natural disasters, FinTech lenders are more responsive to increased demand for reconstruction mortgages than traditional banks and non-FinTech shadow banks. Both FinTech and traditional banks increase credit supply, but FinTech supply is more elastic without increases in risk-adjusted interest rates or delinquency rates. Comparing lending supply channels, banks respond to regulatory incentives to lend to damaged areas, whereas FinTech lenders supply more credit when traditional banks rely more on balance sheet financing and physical branch networks. Compared to traditional banks, FinTech lenders increase supply elasticity more aggressively in response to local competitive pressure.

Managers’ incentives to round up reported earnings per share (EPS) cause an underrepresentation of the number 4 in the first post-decimal digit of EPS, or “quadrophobia.” We develop a novel measure of aggressive financial reporting practices based on a firm’s history of quadrophobia. Quadrophobia is pervasive, persistent, and successfully predicts future restatements, Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement actions, and class action litigation. It is more pronounced when executive compensation is more closely tied to the stock price and when the firm anticipates violating debt covenants. Quadrophobia is especially strong when rounding-up EPS allows firms to meet analyst expectations, and investors seem not to see through this behavior.

This paper investigates the role of common institutional blockholders (CIBs) in promoting strategic alliances and facilitating the transfer of human capital between alliance partner firms. We find that firms are more likely to form strategic alliances (including research and development (R&D), licensing, manufacturing, and marketing alliances) when they share CIBs with a larger proportion of their industry peers. To establish a causal relationship, we exploit the exogenous shocks to CIB ownership induced by annual Russell 1000/2000 index reconstitutions. Our firm-pair-level analysis indicates that two firms are more likely to form alliances when they share a CIB. Additionally, we show that R&D alliance partner firms connected through CIBs exhibit greater across-partner redeployment of R&D-related human capital than partner firms without CIB connections. Overall, our findings underscore the significance of common institutional blockholder ownership in reducing the distrust that hinders strategic alliance formation and in realizing the economic benefits of such alliances.

In this paper, we empirically analyze how strategic alliances affect the innovation output of the firms forming the alliance. We find a positive effect of R&D-related strategic alliances on corporate innovation, as measured by the quantity and quality of patents filed. This effect is stronger for firms led by CEOs with higher general managerial skills, firms with greater experience from earlier alliances, and firms operating in R&D-intensive industries. Furthermore, the innovation-fostering effect of strategic alliances is more pronounced if alliance partnering firms share a common institutional blockholder or have a higher degree of technological proximity. We also document, for the first time in the literature, a unique contractual mechanism through which firms share the benefits of innovation with their alliance partners, namely, “co-patenting.”