This study investigates whether extensive disclosure reduces managerial expropriation of corporate resources by examining the potential effects of enhanced reporting on the values of cash assets and investment ventures, respectively. We uncover evidence that liquid asset holdings are valued at a discount by firms with fewer disclosure practices than their more transparent counterparts. Moreover, disclosure activity substantially improves the value of cash assets in excess of requirements for operations and investment. These findings suggest that detailed reporting facilitates the scrutiny and discipline of capital markets, thus preventing the diversion of cash reserves. In further support of the disciplinary power of greater disclosure, we find that value-destroying projects, through internal capital investment and external acquisitions, are concentrated in firms adopting opaque disclosure policies. Collectively, our results support the premise that extensive disclosure impairs insiders' abilities to utilize corporate resources in a self-serving manner. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources indicated in the text..

Using a comprehensive sample of U.S. mutual funds from 1992 to 2004, we find strong evidence that investment bank-affiliated funds underperform unaffiliated funds. Consistent with the conflict of interest hypothesis, we find that affiliated funds hold disproportionately large amounts of stocks of their initial public offering and seasoned equity offering clients. Moreover, worse-performing clients are more likely to be held by affiliated funds. Our results are robust to alternative risk adjustments, portfolio weighting schemes, and regression methodologies. Overall, our findings are consistent with the idea that investment banks use affiliated funds to support underwriting business at the expense of fund shareholders.

This study investigates the association between managerial ability and cost rigidity. Cost rigidity refers to the relative proportion of fixed and variable costs. We expect that high‐ability managers will assess the potential upside congestion and downside default risks and choose an appropriate level of cost rigidity accordingly. Our results show that, on average, high‐ability managers tend to adopt a more rigid cost structure because they are more likely to realize favorable demand, and therefore, they retain higher capacity with more fixed inputs to alleviate potential congestion risk. We further document that firms with high‐ability managers will exhibit a higher (lower) level of cost rigidity when facing higher congestion risk (default risk). Our results are robust to using a propensity score matching method, a CEO turnover subsample, and alternative measures of cost rigidity and managerial ability. Taken together, this study suggests that firms' capacity management choices vary with the level of managerial ability.

We use a novel pricing model to imply time series of diffusive volatility and jump intensity from S&P 500 index options. These two measures capture the ex ante risk assessed by investors. Using a simple general equilibrium model, we translate the implied measures of ex ante risk into an ex ante risk premium. The average premium that compensates the investor for the ex ante risks is 70% higher than the premium for realized volatility. The equity premium implied from option prices is shown to significantly predict subsequent stock market returns.

We analytically study the economic consequences of the disclosure of managerial compensation contracts in a setting where two firms, by designing compensation contracts for their respective managers, compete for a new investment opportunity. Each manager is privately informed about her firm's profitability from this investment. We find that the disclosure leads to firms' emphasizing short-term stock performance in their managers' contracts. This, in turn, induces managers to signal favorable private information via myopic overinvestment, which deters rival firms' investments and gains their own firms a competitive edge. Nonetheless, such strategic use of compensation contracts is absent when the contracts are not disclosed; under this regime, equilibrium contracts only focus on long-term outcomes. Moreover, while disclosure-mandate-induced managerial myopia erodes firm profits, it may benefit consumer and social welfare. Our theory illuminates the economic consequences of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) disclosure implemented in 2006.

This paper studies an optimal renegotiation protocol designed by a benevolent planner when two countries renegotiate with the same lender. The solution calls for recoveries that induce each country to default or repay, trading off the deadweight costs and the redistribution benefits of default independently of the other country. This outcome contrasts with a decentralized bargaining solution where default in one country increases the likelihood of default in the second country because recoveries are lower when both countries renegotiate. The paper suggests that policies geared at designing renegotiation processes that treat countries in isolation can prevent contagion of debt crises.

When does a common group identity improve efficiency in coordination games? To answer this question, we propose a group-contingent social preference model and derive conditions under which social identity changes equilibrium selection. We test our predictions in the minimum-effort game in the laboratory under parameter configurations which lead to an inefficient low-effort equilibrium for subjects with no group identity. For those with a salient group identity, consistent with our theory, we find that learning leads to ingroup coordination to the efficient high-effort equilibrium. Additionally, our theoretical framework reconciles findings from a number of coordination game experiments.

This study clarifies the conditions under which learning in games produces convergence to Nash equilibria in practice. We experimentally investigate the role of supermodularity, which is closely related to the more familiar concept of strategic complementarities, in achieving convergence through learning. Using a game from the literature on solutions to externalities, we find that supermodular and “near-supermodular” games converge significantly better than those far below the threshold of supermodularity. From a little below the threshold to the threshold, the improvement is statistically insignificant. Increasing the parameter far beyond the threshold does not significantly improve convergence.

We document that the currency denomination of the debt of large firms in developed countries is strongly associated with the geographical distribution of their sales. Furthermore, those firms exhibit significant home currency bias and international currency bias in borrowing: controlling for the geography of sales, they borrow more in their home currency and the two most traded currencies, the US dollar and the euro. We also show that the firms’ debt currency denomination choices are associated with export invoicing currency patterns in a way consistent with a currency hedging mechanism. In particular, firms domiciled in countries that invoice a larger share of their exports in either their home currency or in a vehicle currency exhibit a weaker connection between the currency denomination of their debt and the geography of their sales. Moreover, firms in countries that invoice more of their exports in an international currency are characterized by stronger international currency bias in debt issuance.