Knowledge that Transforms

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Critics assert that securities class actions are economically burdensome and yield minimal recoveries, whereas proponents claim they deter wrongdoing. We examine key events in the recent Goldman Sachs Supreme Court case to test the net effect of securities litigation risk on shareholder value. We find that investors view securities class actions as value‐increasing. However, the strength of this effect varies based on external monitoring. Investors view securities class actions as more value‐enhancing when institutional ownership is low. We also use this setting to examine the effect of securities litigation risk on mandatory disclosure because the Goldman Sachs case focuses on mandatory disclosure properties. Using a difference‐in‐differences design, we find firm risk factor disclosures become shorter and less similar to industry peers, and they contain more uncertain and weak terms. Overall, our results show nuanced effects of securities litigation risk on shareholder value and firm disclosure.

This paper examines how physical climate exposure affects firm performance and global supply chains. We document that heat at supplier locations reduces the operating income of suppliers and their customers. Further, customers respond to perceived changes in suppliers’ exposure: when suppliers’ realized exposure exceeds ex ante expectations, customers are 7% more likely to terminate supplier relationships. Consistent with experience-based learning, this effect increases with signal strength and repetition and decreases with country-level climate adaptation. Subsequent replacement suppliers show a lower expected and realized but similar projected heat exposure. We find similar results for suppliers’ exposure to floods.

Collecting large asset managers’ capital market assumptions, we revisit the relationships between subjective equity premium expectations, equity valuations, and financial portfolios. In contrast to the well-documented extrapolative expectations of retail investors, asset managers’ equity premium expectations are countercyclical: they are high (low) when valuations are low (high). We find that asset managers’ portfolios reflect their heterogeneous expectations: allocation funds of asset managers with larger U.S. equity premium expectations invest significantly more in U.S. equities. The sensitivity of portfolios to expectations seems to be muted by investment mandates and is smaller than the one predicted by a standard portfolio choice model.