We develop an estimator for publication bias-adjusted returns and apply it to 156 published long-short portfolios. Our adjustment uses only in-sample data and provides sharper inferences than out-of-sample tests. Bias-adjusted returns are only 12.3% smaller than in-sample returns with a standard error of 1.7 percentage points. The small bias comes from the dispersion of returns across predictors, which is too large to be explained by data-mined noise. The bias is much smaller than post-publication decay (p-value ¡.0001), suggesting mispricing is important. Our results offer a different perspective about recent papers that find most published predictors are likely false.

Prior research has examined the firm-level performance implications of “busy” boards. Firm-level analysis, however, masks important heterogeneity in the time constraints and expertise of individual busy directors. We develop and validate shareholder voting as a proxy for shareholders’ satisfaction. Our director-specific tests provide compelling evidence that the potential costs of busy directors outweigh their benefits. At the same time, we uncover new sources of heterogeneity among busy directors. For example, the downsides are more pronounced for directors who sit on boards where fiscal year ends cluster in the same month. Our analysis highlights the role of shareholder voting in board composition research.

This study uses two distinct quasi-natural experiments to examine the effect of institutional shareholders on corporate social responsibility (CSR). We first find that an exogenous increase in institutional holding caused by Russell Index reconstitutions improves portfolio firms’ CSR performance. We then find that firms have lower CSR ratings when shareholders are distracted due to exogenous shocks. Moreover, the effect of institutional ownership is stronger in CSR categories that are financially material. Furthermore, we show that institutional shareholders influence CSR through CSR-related proposals. Overall, our results suggest that institutional shareholders can generate real social impact.

We hypothesize that if individual auditors possess unique audit styles that they consistently apply to different audit engagements, then client firms with a common signing auditor will exhibit higher earnings comparability. Using a large sample of Chinese firms, we find that client firms report more comparable earnings when they are audited by the same individual auditor than when they are audited by (1) different audit firms, (2) the same audit firm, but different audit offices, and (3) the same audit office, but different individual auditors. The individual auditor style effect is stronger for larger audit firms, senior signing auditors, and signing auditors with more stable teamwork experience. We also document that having a common signing auditor is associated with lower analyst earnings forecast error and dispersion for client firms. This study contributes to the literature by showing that individual auditors have a significant impact on client firms' earnings comparability.

We study how information disclosure affects financial intermediation when the payoff to the long-term investment is risky. The analysis is based on a business-cycle version of the bank run model wherein a bank provides risk sharing to demand depositors who experience unobservable shocks to their liquidity preferences. The bank pre-commits to the precision of an interim signal regarding the payoff to the long-term investment. We examine the impact of bank disclosure on optimal risk sharing achieved by run-proof, signal-contingent demand-deposit contracts. We show that for utility functions that display non-increasing absolute risk aversion, more informative disclosure improves the ex ante risk sharing provided by financial intermediation.

We investigate how a shock to corporate demand for experienced directors (i.e., U.S. Congress’ grant of Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China in 2000) affects U.S. firms’ board structure and board advisory role. We find that firms appoint more outside directors with China-related experience after the grant. Firms with such directors realize higher returns around announcements of investments involving Chinese firms and better post-deal operating performance, particularly when these directors reside in the U.S. The appointment of directors with China experience is also greeted more positively by the stock market and they gain more board seats after the grant.

This paper investigates whether the disruption of political connections increases labor costs among Chinese listed firms. Using the Communist Party of China's Rule No. 18 as an exogenous shock that forces firms to lose their politically connected independent directors, we find that the disruption of political connections is associated with an increase in labor costs (both in terms of aggregate labor costs per firm and average labor costs per employee) and an increase in employee turnover. Such increases do not lead to labor productivity improvements, and cannot be attributed to changes in corporate policies or the composition of labor forces after Rule No. 18. We also find that firms with higher unemployment risk and skilled labor risk increase their labor costs to a larger extent. Our results are robust to alternative labor cost measures, controlling for potential confounding events, and alternative political connection channels. Our study shows an unintended labor market consequence—increases in labor costs—of political connection disruptions for firms that are adversely affected by such disruptions.

We examine the effects of a temporary suspension of short-sale price tests on the options market. Consistent with the notion that put option trading substitutes for short selling, we find a significant reduction in put option volume. In addition, pressure on put option prices significantly declines, violations of the put-call parity become significantly less frequent, and option volume becomes less informed. Our findings add clarity to a long-standing debate on whether investors use options to circumvent equity short-selling restrictions.

We examine the effect of a pre-IPO audit committee on IPO pricing from the perspectives of information asymmetry and agency problems. We propose a bargaining power hypothesis to disentangle the information asymmetry explanation (financial reporting quality) from the agency problems explanation (underwriter bargaining power) on IPO pricing. IPO underpricing can be reduced by increasing the financial reporting quality under information asymmetry and/or by decreasing the underwriter bargaining power under agency problems. An audit committee can raise the quality of financial reporting and reduce the bargaining power of underwriters. With a pre-IPO market, the IPO markets in Taiwan have little information asymmetry, thus leading to the weak importance of reducing information asymmetry. We show that the establishment of a pre-IPO audit committee improves IPO pricing efficiency by reducing underwriter bargaining power rather than by raising the quality of financial reporting in Taiwan.