Abstract “Stealth mergers” are not reported to the government because they fall below the required size threshold. We study stealth mergers involving public targets for which manipulation of transaction sizes is unlikely. These stealth mergers result in less R&D spending, patenting, and capital expenditures, and in lower value patents for both acquiring firms and their competitors relative to non-stealth mergers. Industry concentration increases, and product market competition decreases for stealth acquirers. Stealth acquirers and their competitors earn higher cumulative abnormal returns relative to non-stealth mergers. Our results suggest more government scrutiny is warranted for stealth mergers.

We examine relations between board size, managerial incentives and enterprise performance in nonprofit organizations. We posit that a nonprofit's demand for directors increases in the number of programs it pursues, resulting in a positive association between program diversity and board size. Consequently, we predict that board size is inversely related to managerial pay-performance incentives and positively with overall organization performance. We find empirical evidence consistent with our hypotheses. The number of programs is positively related to board size. Board size is associated negatively with managerial incentives, positively with program spending and fundraising performance, and negatively with commercial revenue, in levels and changes.

ABSTRACT We show that top management incentives vary by responsibility. For oversight executives, pay‐performance incentives are $1.22 per thousand dollar increase in shareholder wealth higher than for divisional executives. For CEOs, incentives are $5.65 higher than for divisional executives. Incentives for the median top management team are substantial at $32.32. CEOs account for 42 to 58 percent of aggregate team incentives. For divisional executives, the pay– divisional performance sensitivity is positive and increasing in the precision of divisional performance and the pay– firm performance sensitivity is decreasing in the precision of divisional performance. These results support principal–agent models with multiple signals of managerial effort.