We analyze the effects of institutional cross-ownership of same-industry firms on product market performance and behavior. Our results show that cross-held firms experience significantly higher market share growth than do non-cross-held firms. We establish causality by relying on a difference-in-differences approach based on the quasi-natural experiment of financial institution mergers. We also find evidence suggesting that institutional cross-ownership facilitates explicit forms of product market collaboration (such as within-industry joint ventures, strategic alliances, or within-industry acquisitions) and improves innovation productivity and operating profitability. Overall, our evidence indicates that cross-ownership by institutional blockholders offers strategic benefits by fostering product market coordination.

We examine the effect of short sellers on corporate innovation. To establish causality, we use a policy experiment that exogenously removes the short-selling constraint for a randomly selected subsample of Russell 3000 firms. We find that innovation quality, value, and efficiency of treatment firms improve significantly more than those of control firms surrounding the policy shock. The exposure to patenting-related litigation initiated by short sellers is a plausible underlying mechanism through which short sellers discipline firm managers and enhance innovation. Our paper provides new insights into an unintended real effect of short sellers, specifically their improvement of technological innovation.

We study rating shopping on the MBS market. Outside of AAA, losses are higher on singlerated tranches than on multi-rated ones, and yields predict future losses for single-rated tranches, but not for multi-rated ones. Conversely, ratings have less explanatory power for single-rated tranches. These results suggest that single-rated tranches have been "shopped," whereby pessimistic ratings never reach the market. For AAA-rated MBS, by contrast, 93% receive two or three such ratings, and those ratings agree 97% of the time. This ratings convergence suggests that agencies "cater" to investors, who cannot purchase a tranche unless it has multiple AAA ratings.

We examine the effects of financial analysts on the real economy in the case of innovation. Our baseline results show that firms covered by a larger number of analysts generate fewer patents and patents with lower impact. To establish causality, we use a difference-in-differences approach that relies on the variation generated by multiple exogenous shocks to analyst coverage, as well as an instrumental variable approach. Our identification strategies suggest a negative causal effect of analyst coverage on firm innovation. The evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that analysts exert too much pressure on managers to meet short-term goals, impeding firms' investment in long-term innovative projects. We further discuss possible underlying mechanisms through which analysts impede innovation and show that there is a residual effect of analysts on innovation even after controlling for these mechanisms. Our paper offers novel evidence on a previously under-explored adverse consequence of analyst coverage—its hindrance to firm innovation.

We develop a new rationale for initial public offering (IPO) waves based on product market considerations. Two firms, with differing productivity levels, compete in an industry with a significant probability of a positive productivity shock. Going public, though costly, not only allows a firm to raise external capital cheaply, but also enables it to grab market share from its private competitors. We solve for the decision of each firm to go public versus remain private, and the optimal timing of going public. In equilibrium, even firms with sufficient internal capital to fund their new investment may go public, driven by the possibility of their product market competitors going public. IPO waves may arise in equilibrium even in industries which do not experience a productivity shock. Our model predicts that firms going public during an IPO wave will have lower productivity and post-IPO profitability but larger cash holdings than those going public off the wave; it makes similar predictions for firms going public later versus earlier in an IPO wave. We empirically test and find support for these predictions.

We analyze the effects of institutional cross-ownership of same-industry firms on product market performance and behavior. Our results show that cross-held firms experience significantly higher market share growth than do non-cross-held firms. We establish causality by relying on a difference-in-differences approach based on the quasi-natural experiment of financial institution mergers. We also find evidence suggesting that institutional cross-ownership facilitates explicit forms of product market collaboration (such as within-industry joint ventures, strategic alliances, or within-industry acquisitions) and improves innovation productivity and operating profitability. Overall, our evidence indicates that cross-ownership by institutional blockholders offers strategic benefits by fostering product market coordination. Received November 12, 2015; editorial decision December 31, 2016 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

The IPO volume in the US significantly decreased after 2000, as more entrepreneurial firms exited through acquisitions rather than IPOs. Using proprietary U.S. Census data on private firms, we examine several new hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Our results support explanations based on standalone public firms’ greater sensitivity to product market competition as well as private firms’ obtaining access to more abundant PE financing in the post2000 era. In contrast, we do not find evidence consistent with an eroded private firm base after 2000 or with the economies of scope explanation that mainly focuses on firm size.

We analyze the role of institutional cross-ownership in internalizing corporate governance externalities using granular mutual fund proxy voting data. Exploiting within-proposal and within-institution variation, we show that an institution's holdings in peer firms are positively associated with the likelihood that the institution votes against management on shareholder-sponsored governance proposals. We further find that high aggregate cross-ownership positively predicts management losing a vote. Overall, our results provide evidence that cross-ownership incentivizes institutional investors to play a more active monitoring role, suggesting that institutional cross-ownership serves as a market-based mechanism to alleviate the inefficiency induced by governance externalities.

We test the signaling view of corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement using two complementary quasi-natural experiments that impose exogenous negative pressure on stock prices. Firms under such adverse price pressure increase CSR activities compared to otherwise similar firms. This effect concentrates among firms with stronger signaling incentives, namely, those facing greater information asymmetry, more product market competition, higher shareholder litigation risk, and higher stock price crash risk. Firms under the exogenous negative price pressure mainly improve CSR strengths, including costly environmental investments. We also find that CSR engagement attracts socially responsible investors and lowers the cost of capital for signaling firms.

Consistent with theories on the equilibrium matching between capital structure and employee job risk aversion, we find a robust, positive association between a firm’s leverage and its employees’ family labor income diversification. Higher-Leverage firms also recruit new employees with greater income diversification. For identification, we exploit two policy shocks that exogenously change employee income diversification and firm leverage, respectively. Individual employee-level tests further reveal that workers with differential risk attitudes adjust their job choices and household labor income portfolios in response to significant shifts in their employers’ leverage. Finally, human bankruptcy costs contribute to the general level of corporate risk-taking.