We study a publicly traded firm that cares about its short-term stock market performance while collaborating with a privately owned firm in a business alliance. The firms each undertake a relation-specific investment and then bargain over the allocation of the joint surplus generated by the alliance. The public firm’s myopic market concerns affect both the total size of the surplus and how the firms divide the surplus. While the public firm always becomes more aggressive and obtains more of the surplus, the total size of the surplus may become larger or smaller, due to the effect of myopic market concerns on the firms’ investment incentives. We establish conditions under which the investment and the value of each firm increase or decrease with market concerns. The market concerns could mitigate or exacerbate the hold-up problem between the two firms and thus could either benefit or harm the whole business alliance. We also study two extensions with (i) the two investments being substitutes instead of complements and (ii) both firms being publicly listed. In both cases, the insights from our main model still hold.

We study how corporate taxation interacts with intrafirm incentive conflicts between shareholders and managers and how this interaction impacts the firm's economic decisions and outcomes. In our model, investment under asymmetric information facilitates entrenchment and rent extraction by the privately informed manager. We show that when the future investment payoff is exogenous, a corporate tax cut increases managerial rents, reduces pre‐tax investment profitability, increases the firm's optimal investment hurdle rate, and reduces investment. When the manager can exert upfront project development effort to increase the expected investment payoff, a tax rate reduction not only encourages more effort but also leads the firm to increase the investment hurdle rate to curtail rents. In equilibrium, a lower tax rate always benefits the manager, but the sensitivity of the project's return to the manager's effort determines whether the firm will increase or decrease investment in response to a tax cut, and whether the firm's resulting pre‐tax profit will increase or decrease. Overall, our study shows that intrafirm incentive conflicts can be an important factor in the interplay between tax incidence and economic efficiency, two central themes in corporate tax policy debates.

Options, restricted stock, bonuses tied to total shareholder return, and similar equity-based compensation contracts stipulate payments that depend on stock price. Any such contract is a function of shareholder value net of the compensation payment, because stock price (1) is proportional to this net value or “net outcome” and (2) anticipates compensation-related payments and dilution. The net outcome, in turn, is reduced by the payment and so depends on the contract. Standard moral hazard analyses, wherein contractual payments are based on the gross outcome before any payment to the agent, overlook this dependency. We characterize the optimal net-outcome contract, describe its shape and pay-for-performance sensitivity, contrast it with the optimal gross-outcome contract, and discuss implications for equity-based compensation arrangements.

We model two competing firms, each operating through their controlled subsidiaries while also holding a minority financial stake in their rival’s subsidiary. Under such cross-ownership, we derive the firms’ optimal disclosure policies, showing how they are affected by technological spillovers, competitive intensity, and the nature of product markets. The results demonstrate that cross-ownership induces more disclosures, benefiting the firm because disclosures promote the profit of its subsidiary (at low spillover values) or the rival’s subsidiary (at high spillover values). The increased transparency under cross-ownership can generate Pareto gains, improving consumer surplus and firm profits relative to separate ownership. This unifying finding holds under quantity and price competition, challenging the view that cross-ownership leads firms to collude, harming consumers. Additionally, with cross-ownership, high-spillover disclosures occur more under price than quantity competition. Thus, price competition can generate Pareto gains, contradicting the view that it favors consumers at the expense of firms.

This paper extends a familiar model of competition and disclosure to incorporate the practical feature that firms may not only hold private information about consumer demand, but they can also influence demand by the investments they make in improving product quality. Such investments can reflect installing new product features, improving durability, adding design enhancements, and the like. This paper demonstrates that investments stand to significantly influence the firm's preference for disclosures and, in fact, become a determining feature of disclosure choice. In particular, under Cournot competition, a firm prefers disclosure when the industry‐wide effects of information and investments are concordant. That is, if both product quality and demand information have large positive industry spillovers, disclosure is desirable because it promotes implicit cooperation in investments; if both have low spillover, disclosure permits a firm to convey strength to a rival and then use quantity and quality in concert to dominate the market precisely when the firm's demand is at its peak.

In empirically estimating the relation between CEO compensation and accounting‐based firm and peer performance, researchers often define the performance variables net of CEO compensation expense. We analytically show that a researcher's use of CEO compensation as a regression's dependent variable and as an expense in defining a regression's independent variables representing accounting‐based firm and peer performance will bias the researcher's pay‐for‐performance and relative performance evaluation (RPE) regression coefficients. In a panel estimation of CEO compensation, we document an attenuation bias in the coefficients on net firm and net peer performance. This evidence may partially explain inferences of weak CEO incentives and limited usage of RPE in prior work. Our results imply that in CEO compensation regressions, a researcher can remove biases in inferring CEO incentives and RPE usage by using gross rather than net accounting performance variables—that is, by adding back CEO compensation expense to net accounting measures.