Over a period that includes the 1998 Russian crisis and 2007–2009 financial crisis,banks with overconfident chief executive officers (CEOs) were more likely to weaken lending standards and increase leverage than other banksin advance of a crisis,making them more vulnerable to the shock of the crisis.During crisis years, they generally experienced more increases in loan defaults, greater drops in operating and stock return performance, greater increases in expected default probability, and higher likelihood of CEO turnover or failure than other banks.CEO overconfidence thus canexplain the cross-sectional heterogeneity in risk-taking behavior among banks.

Firms can effectively stave off outside takeover bids using private investments in public equity (PIPEs) when they face strong takeover pressure. Greater takeover pressure makes PIPE issuers more likely to grant investors large blocks of shares, price discounts, generous dividends, and board seats. Takeover pressure also encourages issuers to place more shares with friendly investors such as managerial investors and strategic alliance investors. The evidence is consistent with the regular methods of the white squire defense. PIPEs can be a preferred method in the choice of a white squire defense when poorly performing and highly overleveraged firms face severe takeover pressure. There is a negative relation between takeover probability and post-issue performance of issuers, which supports the managerial entrenchment hypothesis over the shareholder interest hypothesis. Therefore PIPEs can increase, not mitigate, agency problems.