Following the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010, which removed restrictions in relation to firms’ political spending, and building on the growing debate over whether voluntary political spending disclosure (VPSD) provides valuable information, we examine the effect of political spending on the cost of public debt and the role of VPSD on this effect. Based on a measure of VPSD that became available in 2012 and a large dataset on US firms’ actual political spending, manually extracted from different filings, we provide novel evidence that, in the post-Supreme Court decision period, political spending increases the cost of public debt. This is consistent with the uncertainty associated with political spending. Moreover, we find that the level of voluntary disclosure weakens the positive association between political spending and the cost of public debt. These results hold across multiple specifications as well as when we use a sudden release of firms’ political spending as an exogenous shock to political spending.

Despite the prevalence of private equity (PE) buyouts of private firms, little is known about how these transactions create value. We provide evidence that PE acquirers disproportionately target private firms with weak operating profitability and those that have growth potential but are highly levered and dependent on external financing. Target firms grow rapidly post-buyout, especially those undertaking add-on acquisitions, and profitability increases for both profitable and unprofitable targets. Our evidence suggests that PE acquirers create value by relaxing financing constraints for firms with strong investment opportunities and improving the performance of weak firms, while financial engineering plays a limited role.

The method of payment choice in merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions has been the subject of much research in the finance literature. But significant changes in the economic environment of acquirers in the U.S. call into question whether known stylized facts are still valid and motivate us to undertake new empirical analyses. Using a large sample of M&A transactions spanning the last two decades, we investigate the financial constraints versus ownership dilution tradeoff that potentially drives negotiations about the method of payment (i.e., stock or cash), controlling for an extensive list of other potential determinants. The main takeaway from our analyses is that financial constraints are a dominant factor motivating acquirers to include stock (at least partially) in the method of payment package in M&A transactions in the recent period.

This article documents new and empirically important interactions between cash-balance and leverage dynamics. Cash ratios typically vary widely over extended horizons, with dynamics remarkably similar to (and complementary with) those of capital structure. Leverage and cash dynamics interact approximately as predicted by the internal-versus-external funding regimes in Myers and Majluf (1984, J. Finan. Econ., 13, 187–221.). Leverage is quite volatile when cash ratios are stable and vice-versa, while net-debt ratios are almost always volatile. Most firms increase leverage sharply as cash balances (internal funds) become scarce. Capital structure models that extend Hennessy and Whited (2005, J. Finan., 60, 1129–1165.) to include cash-balance dynamics explain some, but not all, aspects of the observed relation between cash squeezes and leverage increases.

We introduce a simple and intuitive approach of modeling and forecasting correlations for use in portfolio optimization. The model is composite in nature and consists of elements based on a bivariate realized volatility model. Importantly, our framework allows for volatility spill-overs between assets which provide an edge compared to competing models when forming portfolios. We apply the model to high-frequency data for commodity markets and demonstrate significant economic gains for an investor basing portfolio decisions on our modeling framework. This gain is significant in economic terms, even after imposing realistic constraints on short selling and portfolio turnover.

In this paper, we investigate how increasing transparency about managers' treatment of their employees affects the tendency of employees to initiate collusion. Building on behavioral economics theory, we argue that employees who are treated less kindly by their managers are more willing to initiate or join a collusive agreement. We hypothesize that internal transparency affects collusion in two ways. First, by revealing how kindly employees are treated by their managers, transparency increases or decreases the probability that individuals are singled out as potential “partners in crime.” Second, increasing transparency incentivizes managers to treat employees more kindly, which in turn reduces employees’ inclination to initiate collusion. The results of two experiments generally support the theory. We discuss the implications of our study for research and practice.

We document that U.S. mutual funds with investment objectives designated as “Sustainable Investment Overall” by Morningstar (ESG funds) are more likely than other mutual funds to vote in support of environmental and social (ES) shareholder proposals and governance (G) shareholder proposals. We also find that the higher support for ES proposals by ESG funds relative to other funds is more pronounced in index funds than in active funds, consistent with trading constraints influencing voting behavior. While these results provide evidence that ESG funds “walk the talk” with their voting behavior on average, we find that fund families play a significant role in that walk. Additionally, in an analysis of fund families that are signatories of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), we find that ESG funds of PRI families are significantly more likely to support ES proposals and G proposals than non-ESG funds of PRI families. We determine that this significant difference stems from non-ESG funds of PRI families providing less support than non-ESG funds from non-PRI families. Taken together, these results provide evidence that ESG funds available to U.S. investors provide more support for shareholder proposals aligned with their designated investment objective, but the type and family of the fund influence that support.

We examine (1) spillover effects between euro-area sovereigns and banking systems within national jurisdictions and (2) cross-country spillovers among ten countries during the euro-area crisis. We find that cross-country spillovers substantially amplify the doom loops between the sovereign and banking sectors. We also provide a test that supports the hypothesis that cross-country spillovers among southern-euro-area countries were of a different order from the spillovers among northern-euro-area countries. Our results also imply that, if shocks are idiosyncratic, spillover effects may help in reducing the impact for northern countries.

Pre-College human capital investment occurs within a competitive environment and depends on market incentives created by Affirmative Action (AA) in college admissions. These policies affect mechanisms for rank-order allocation of college seats, and alter the relative competition between blacks and whites. We present a theory of AA in university admissions, showing how the effects of AA on human capital investment differ by student ability and demographic group. We then conduct a field experiment designed to mimic important aspects of competitive investment prior to the college market. We pay students based on relative performance on a mathematics exam in order to test the incentive effects of AA, and track study efforts on an online mathematics website. Consistent with theory, AA increases average human capital investment and exam performance for the majority of disadvantaged students targeted by the policy, by mitigating so-called "discouragement effects." The experimental evidence suggests that AA can promote greater equality of market outcomes and narrow achievement gaps at the same time.

We investigate how demand conditions affect employers’ provision of safety—something about which theory is ambivalent. Positive demand shocks relax financial constraints that limit safety investment but simultaneously raise the opportunity cost of increasing safety rather than production. We study the US metals mining sector, leveraging exogenous demand shocks from short-term variation in global commodity prices. We find that positive price shocks substantially increase workplace injury rates and safety regulation noncompliance. While these results indicate the general dominance of the opportunity cost effect, shocks that only increase mines’ cash flow lower injury rates, illustrating that financial constraints also affect safety.