Publicly traded firms contribute less to total nonfarm employment and GDP now than in the 1970s. Major reasons for this development are the decline of manufacturing, the shift towards more production abroad in manufacturing, and the growth of the service economy as firms providing services are less likely to be listed on exchanges. A firm's stock market capitalization is much less instructive about its employment now than earlier. Market capitalizations have not become systematically less informative about firms’ contribution to GDP. Listed stock market superstars account for less employment than they did in the 1970s.

The allegation that activist investors demand changes that increase short-term stock prices at the expense of long-term shareholder value (“short-termism”) has led to extensive research on interventions by hedge funds. Few studies include other private (non-hedge fund) activists, even though we find they constitute almost half of interventions. Using a 20-year sample that includes over 2000 interventions by each type of activist, we find that short- and long-window abnormal returns are positive and economically significant around ownership announcements for each activist, and they do not reverse. Importantly, positive returns are observed for both sale and most other (non-sale) demands. Demands to sell all, or part, of the targeted firms earn especially sizable returns, and interestingly, sale demands are made more frequently by other private activists than by hedge funds. Despite the sizable returns, informed users do not regard the equity as overvalued. Analysts' recommendations become more favorable—a reversal of the pre-announcement trend—and long-term, “dedicated” institutional investors increase their ownership. We also find post-intervention improvements in operating performance (ROA) and firm valuation (Tobin's Q), further justifying the positive response by market participants. Our study provides new evidence that activism increases long-term shareholder value and opens an avenue for a line of research on other private activists.

This study examines whether the heterogeneity among foreign institutional investors (FIIs) matters when investing in socially responsible investee firms. Exploiting a mandated corporate social responsibility (CSR) regulation in India and using manually collected CSR expenditure data, the results of a quasi-natural experiment confirm that firms that comply with the CSR mandate attract greater investment from FIIs. This positive nexus holds for both existing and new FIIs. However, the heterogeneity of FIIs plays a significant moderating role because FIIs from civil law origin countries and those considered independent and long-term investors invest more in mandated CSR firms.

How does the structure of financial intermediaries’ liabilities affect their asset holdings? We investigate the consequences of the 2014 money market fund (MMF) reform, which imposed redemption gates and liquidity fees on prime MMFs and forced prime funds marketed to institutional investors to switch from constant to floating net asset value. These changes made prime MMFs’ liabilities less money-like. As a consequence, the affected MMFs experienced an increase in flow–performance sensitivity and started taking more risks. In addition, the total funding provided by MMFs to the corporate sector, and especially to safer issuers, has decreased.

Using individual credit bureau data matched with cash windfalls from fracking, we estimate that windfall recipients reduce debt-to-income by 2.4 percentage points relative to no-windfall controls. Debt repayment effects are 3 times stronger for subprime individuals than for prime individuals. Based on the timing of upfront versus continuing cash payments, debt repayment coincides with the timing of payments but not with news about future payments. These findings present a challenge for purely forward-looking models of debt. Indeed, when we incorporate a windfall shock into a forward-looking model, the model predicts an increase in debt that runs counter to our evidence of debt repayment.

Prior research documents that asset growth is negatively associated with future firm performance. In contrast, we show that growth financed by product market stakeholders (i.e., “operating growth”) is positively associated with future firm performance. Investors and security analysts underestimate the positive effects of operating growth on future performance, resulting in return predictability and overly pessimistic earnings forecasts for firms with high operating growth. Future stock returns largely concentrate around subsequent earnings announcements with declining magnitudes, consistent with the error-in-expectation explanation. Results from cross-sectional tests further support the hypothesis that operating growth signals high future performance but investors underreact to it.

We show that private equity-sponsored public-to-private buyouts in the US evoke positive externality effects among their targets’ industry peers. Industrial organization and strategic theory suggest buyouts may impact their industry peers as a result of increased takeover threat and competitive pressure felt by the peers. We document that buyouts are associated with positive market returns and better fundamental performance in the three years following a buyout acquisition in the industry. Drilling down into specific channels of improvement, we document that industry peers mitigate the increased takeover threat and competitive pressure by significantly improving several dimensions of operational efficiency, by engaging in long-term innovation and by enhancing their corporate governance. Our results suggest that competitive factors rather than takeover threat is responsible for the spillover effects.

We create a novel dataset to examine the recent rise in dual-class IPOs. We document that dual-class firms have different types of controlling shareholders and wedges between voting and economic rights, and that the increasing popularity of dual-class structures is driven by founder-controlled firms. We find that founders’ wedge is greater when founders have stronger bargaining power. The increase in founder control over time is due to greater availability of private capital and technological shocks that reduced firms’ needs for external financing. Stronger bargaining power is also associated with a lower likelihood of sunset provisions that terminate dual-class structures.

Audit firms are investing billions of dollars to develop artificial intelligence (AI) systems that will help auditors execute challenging tasks (e.g., evaluating complex estimates). Although firms assume AI will enhance audit quality, a growing body of research documents that individuals often exhibit “algorithm aversion”—the tendency to discount computer‐based advice more heavily than human advice, although the advice is identical otherwise. Therefore, we conduct an experiment to examine how algorithm aversion manifests in auditor judgments. Consistent with theory, we find that auditors receiving contradictory evidence from their firm's AI system (instead of a human specialist) propose smaller adjustments to management's complex estimates, particularly when management develops their estimates using relatively objective (vs. subjective) inputs. Our findings suggest auditor susceptibility to algorithm aversion could prove costly for the profession and financial statements users.

We use a field experiment to study price discrimination in a market with price posting and negotiation. Motivated by concerns that low-income consumers do poorly in markets with privately negotiated prices, we built a call center staffed with actors armed with bargaining scripts to reveal negotiated prices and their determinants. Our actors implement sequential bargaining games under incomplete information in the field. By experimentally manipulating how information is revealed, we generate sequences of price offers that allow us to identify price discrimination in negotiations based on retailer perceptions of consumers’ search and switching costs. We also document differences in price distributions between entrants and incumbents, reflecting differences in captivity of their respective consumer bases. Finally, we show that higher prices paid by lower-income subsidy recipients in our market is not due to discriminatory targeting; they can be explained by variation in consumer willingness and ability to search and bargain.