We investigate the reputational impact of financial fraud for outside directors based on a sample of firms facing shareholder class action lawsuits. Following a financial fraud lawsuit, outside directors do not face abnormal turnover on the board of the sued firm but experience a significant decline in other board seats held. This decline in other directorships is greater for more severe allegations of fraud and when the outside director bears greater responsibility for monitoring fraud. Interlocked firms that share directors with the sued firm also exhibit valuation declines at the lawsuit filing. Fraud-affiliated directors are more likely to lose directorships at firms with stronger corporate governance and their departure is associated with valuation increases for these firms.

Firms with busy boards, those in which a majority of outside directors hold three or more directorships, are associated with weak corporate governance. These firms exhibit lower market‐to‐book ratios, weaker profitability, and lower sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance. Independent but busy boards display CEO turnover‐performance sensitivities indistinguishable from those of inside‐dominated boards. Departures of busy outside directors generate positive abnormal returns (ARs). When directors become busy as a result of acquiring an additional directorship, other companies in which they hold board seats experience negative ARs. Busy outside directors are more likely to depart boards following poor performance.

Institutional investors affected by hurricanes subsequently support environmental proposals in non-affected firms even if they never voted for similar initiatives. Affected investors raise their holdings in firms where their pro-environment votes are consequential. The increased voting support after hurricanes has real effects as environmental proposals endorsed by more hurricane-afflicted investors are more likely to pass. Moreover, both market capitalization and analysts’ recommendations decline after firms pass environmental proposals. Our evidence suggests that natural disasters raise institutional investors’ concerns about the environment and about potential fund flow disruptions. These concerns, in turn, influence environmental activism, corporate policies, and firm performance.

Acquirer CEOs with experience in the target's industry supply chain (‘supply chain CEOs’) are associated with wealth effects of first-order importance: they earn 1.5% higher merger announcement returns. Conversely, their targets get a lower share of the merger gains. Acquisitions by supply chain CEOs also exhibit higher synergies, better post-deal accounting performance, and less goodwill written off. These findings withstand checks for endogeneity, anticipation bias, and numerous robustness tests. In takeovers by supply chain CEOs, superior acquirer performance stems from both value creation and rents negotiated away from target shareholders.

An assimilation bias occurs when people’s evaluative judgment is positively influenced by a previously observed signal. We study this effect by examining investors’ appraisal of M&A deals announced 1 day after other firms in the same 1-digit SIC as the merging parties release earnings surprises. Consistent with assimilation effects, acquirers’ M&A announcement stock return initially correlates with the previous day’s earnings surprises. This effect reverses after 1 week. Assimilation generates other distortions as more positive surprises are related to increases in bid competition, takeover premiums, and withdrawn M&As. Evidence from IPOs corroborates the presence of assimilation effects in financial markets.

The reciprocal interlocking of chief executive officers is a non-trivial phenomenon: among large companies in 1991, about one company in seven was in a relationship whereby the CEO of one company sat on a second company's board and the second company's CEO sat on the first company's board. We develop hypotheses to distinguish whether this practice furthers the interests of shareholders or the private interests of the CEOs. Using a sample of large companies, we employ a probit model to test these hypotheses. Our empirical findings are that these reciprocal CEO interlocks primarily benefit the CEOs rather than their shareholders.

Through textual analyses of 7.7 million patents, we develop a novel intercompany innovation similarity measure which enables us to find that technologically connected firms cross-predict one another’s returns. Investors impound information about firms’ technological connectedness, although not immediately and fully. Buying (shorting) shares of technological peers earning high (low) returns during the previous month yields a 1.29% monthly return. Firms’ return predictability increases with patent complexity or limited technological disclosures but decreases with better information transparency. Results suggest that investor inattention explains technology momentum. Unlike momentum stemming from simpler, class-based technological links, our Big Data text-based return predictability remains active.

Do merger bonuses to target CEOs facilitate a wealth transfer from target to acquirer shareholders? We test this hypothesis against an alternative that bonuses enable a useful contractual revision in compensation contracts when takeovers generate small synergies. When target CEOs get a merger bonus, acquirers pay lower premiums, but they also typically get less in the form of low synergies. Moreover, both stock and accounting returns to the acquirers are lower on average in deals with target CEO bonuses. These results support the contractual revision alternative. Nevertheless, wealth transfer occurs when merger bonuses are present in deals where targets exhibit high pre-takeover abnormal accruals or are subject to SEC enforcement actions.

SEC Rule10b5-1 plans are intended to limit the ability of insiders to trade opportunistically. We study insider stock sales by CEOs both under and outside of these plans. While both groups exhibit opportunism, this behavior is more limited in plan sales and non-plan sales in well-governed firms. Furthermore, opportunism in plan sales is greater for transactions representing a larger fraction of the CEO's firm-related wealth. CEOs can circumvent the intent of Rule 10b5-1 by exercising their discretion over financial reporting and real earnings management and appear to benefit from material nonpublic information by selectively cancelling plans or using limit orders.

In acquisitions, target chief executive officers (CEOs) face a moral hazard: Any personal gain from the deal could be offset by the loss of the future compensation stream associated with their jobs. Larger, more important parachutes provide greater relief for these losses. To explicitly measure the moral hazard target CEOs face, we standardize the parachute payment by the expected value of their acquisition-induced lost compensation. We examine 851 acquisitions from 1999–2007, finding that more important parachutes benefit target shareholders through higher completion probabilities. Conversely, as parachute importance increases, target shareholders receive lower takeover premia, while acquirer shareholders capture additional rents from target shareholders.