The increasingly large role played by financial intermediaries, such as venture capitalists and angels, in nurturing entrepreneurial firms and in promoting product market innovation has led to great research interest in the area of entrepreneurial finance and innovation. This paper introduces the special issue of the Review of Financial Studies dedicated to entrepreneurial finance and innovation and highlights some of the promising topics for future research in this area. The special issue combines papers presented at the June 2010 "Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation (EFIC)" conference, which was jointly sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation and the Review of Financial Studies, with other related papers.

Information collection and processing in financial institutions is challenging. This can delay the observation by traders of the exact capital charges and constraints of their institution. During this delay, traders face preference uncertainty. In this context, we study optimal trading strategies and equilibrium prices in a continuous centralized market. We focus on liquidity shocks, during which preference uncertainty is likely to matter most. Preference uncertainty generates allocative inefficiency, but need not reduce prices. Progressively learning about preferences generate round–trip trades, which increase volume relative to the frictionless market. In a cross section of liquidity shocks, the initial price drop is positively correlated with total trading volume. Across traders, the number of round–trips is negatively correlated with trading profits and average inventory.

For 2,695 US corporations from 1996 to 2009, we find that alignment in political orientation between the chief executive officer (CEO) and independent directors is associated with lower firm valuations, lower operating profitability, and increased internal agency conflicts such as a reduced likelihood of dismissing poorly performing CEOs, a lower CEO pay-performance sensitivity, and a greater likelihood of accounting fraud. Importantly, we show that our results are driven neither by the effects associated with various measures of similarity and diversity within the board nor the effects of local director labor market and political conditions on board structure. We provide evidence that our measure of individual political orientation reflects the person׳s political beliefs rather than opportunistic attempts to seek political favor. Overall, our results suggest that diversity in political beliefs among corporate board members is valuable.

We examine managerial compensation and wealth sensitivities around CEO changes. The average new CEO is incentivized to increase the risk of the firm primarily because he holds significantly less stock than his predecessor, and in fact riskier policy choices are subsequently implemented. Similar results are obtained in a subsample of CEO changes that are due to retirements and deaths, which alleviates concerns about endogeneity. Our findings indicate that firms seem to be limited in their ability to mitigate the risk-averse behavior caused by large CEO shareholdings.

We study whether investors can exploit serial dependence in stock returns to improve out-of-sample portfolio performance. We show that a vector-autoregressive (VAR) model captures stock return serial dependence in a statistically significant manner. Analytically, we demonstrate that, unlike contrarian and momentum portfolios, an arbitrage portfolio based on the VAR model attains positive expected returns regardless of the sign of asset return cross-covariances and autocovariances. Empirically, we show, however, that both the arbitrage and mean-variance portfolios based on the VAR model outperform the traditional unconditional portfolios only for transaction costs below ten basis points.

This paper presents the first empirical analysis of the choice of firms regarding whether to release private information (“prepare the market”) in advance of a possible dividend cut and the consequences of such market preparation. We use a hand-collected data set of dividend cutting firms, which allows us to distinguish between prepared and nonprepared dividend cutters and to test the implications of two alternative theories: the “signaling through market preparation” theory and the “stock return volatility reduction” theory. We document several important differences between prepared and nonprepared dividend cutters. Overall, our empirical results are consistent with the signaling theory.

We document that, in recent years, over 60% of convertible bond issuers conduct concurrent transactions including share repurchases, call option purchases, warrant sales, seasoned equity offerings, and stock lending program initiations. We investigate the determinants of issuers' choice of concurrent transactions and find that a proxy for capital supply (flows to convertible bond arbitrage hedge funds) is a significant determinant. Option purchases are more likely when capital supply is low and the convertible is dilutive to earnings. SEOs are more likely when firms have valuable growth opportunities and capital supply is low. Convertible issuers establish lending programs when arbitrageurs likely encounter difficulty shorting their stock, suggesting that these firms facilitate short selling in their own stock. These results suggest that, in the convertible bond market, the influence of capital supply extends beyond the issuance decision to the use of concurrent transactions and that these transactions offer important flexibility to issuers. We find that average equity market announcement effects differ when issuers conduct concurrent transactions. Consistent with models of adverse selection, concurrent transactions that reduce the dilutive impact on earnings, thereby making the design more debt-like, are associated with less negative announcement effects. Conversely, concurrent transactions that increase the dilutive impact on earnings, thereby making the design more equity-like, are associated with more negative announcement effects.

Prior to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, audit partners experienced economic pressure to grow revenue from the sale of nonaudit services to their audit clients. To an auditor who is highly rewarded for revenue generation and growth, nonaudit services may represent a particularly strengthened economic bond with the client. Prior research shows that, in general, nonaudit service fees received in the current period do not impair audit quality. We examine a different setting. We propose that auditor independence can become impaired, and audit quality compromised, when clients that currently purchase relatively low amounts of nonaudit services, increase their purchases of nonaudit services from the auditor in the subsequent period. We test our prediction in the context of earnings management as a proxy for audit quality, measured by (a) performance‐adjusted discretionary accruals and (b) classification shifting of core expenses. Our results indicate that prior to the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act, rewards to the auditor in the form of future additional nonaudit service fees from current‐year high fee‐growth‐opportunity clients adversely affects audit quality. This effect is particularly strong among companies with powerful incentives to manage earnings. Our findings indicate that regulators should consider the multiperiod nature of the client–auditor relationship when contemplating policies that restrict nonaudit services, as well as the overall environment in which audit partners operate. This might include partner compensation arrangements that put pressure on audit partners to focus on increasing revenue at the expense of audit quality.