Using comprehensive data on U.S. corporate bond trades since 2002, we find evidence that retail bond investors overrely on untimely credit ratings to their financial detriment. Specifically, they appear to select bonds by first screening on a credit rating and then sorting by yield, buying the highest-yielding bonds within each rating level. Because yields lead credit rating changes, selecting on yield-within-rating means that retail investors systematically trade in the opposite direction of changing fundamentals, buy in advance of credit downgrades and defaults, and materially underperform a diversified portfolio. Our study provides new evidence of ill-informed retail trading in a market that is thought to be relatively sophisticated, corroborates regulators’ concerns about investor overreliance on credit ratings, and contributes to the academic literature on the roles and consequences of credit ratings in debt markets.

The lack of diversity across gender and race of corporate boards has been one of the most significant issues in corporate board governance in recent years. Given the critical role that shareholders have in approving director appointments, we analyze voting patterns in director elections to investigate whether and how shareholders value board diversity. Using a broad sample of director elections from 2008 through 2018, we find evidence that shareholders provide greater voting support for diversity on boards, particularly gender diversity. Our findings also indicate greater additional support for diverse boards rather than for individual candidates. However, the magnitude of incremental voting support for diversity is small, and we find little evidence that the additional support is sufficient to affect voting outcomes. These findings persist over time and across key institutional shareholders who have been some of the most outspoken proponents of board diversity (i.e., SRI funds), questioning shareholders’ commitment to promoting board diversity.