In this paper, we examine whether a firm's relationship with its principal customers/suppliers affects its payout policies. A firm has customer–supplier relationships when its business depends on a small number of major customers/suppliers. The extant literature indicates two channels through which customer–supplier relationships might negatively affect a firm's dividend payments: 1) the high financial distress costs associated with relationship-specific investments and 2) the information certification effect of the principle customer. Consistent with expectations, our study reveals a negative relationship between a firm's dependence on customer–supplier relationships and its dividend payments. This result is robust to various model specifications and consistent with evidence regarding the time-series properties of dividends. Moreover, we find that high financial distress costs associated with relationship-specific investments are the key channel through which a firm's customer–supplier relationship affects its dividend payments. Overall, our results suggest that a firm's relationship with its non-financial stakeholders, such as principal customers/suppliers, is an important determinant of its shareholders' income.

Using a large and novel data set over the period of 1976 to 2019 tracking inventors’ career paths following mergers and acquisitions, we show that collaboration between acquirer and target inventors post-merger is associated with more path-breaking patents than those filed by either acquirer or target inventor-only teams. We further show that such collaboration is more important in improving acquirers’ innovation capabilities than hiring target inventors and knowledge spillovers. Finally, we show that recombining tacit knowledge embodied in the human capital of acquirer and target inventors is likely the mechanism. We conclude that inter-firm inventor collaboration is one key means for achieving synergies.

We present a new model of asset prices in which investors evaluate risk according to prospect theory and examine its ability to explain 23 prominent stock market anomalies. The model incorporates all of the elements of prospect theory, accounts for investors' prior gains and losses, and makes quantitative predictions about an asset's average return based on empirical estimates of the asset's return volatility, return skewness, and past capital gain. We find that the model can help explain a majority of the 23 anomalies.

We investigate the effects of social trust on foreign institutional investors’ equity holdings in listed Chinese firms from 2005 to 2011. We find that social trust embedded in the regional environment is an important factor for the investment decisions of foreign institutional investors. We also find that the proportion and likelihood of foreign ownership increases with the level of social trust. The results support the notion that social trust and trust-related information help mitigate informational barriers in international equity investments. Our results are robust to alternative measures of social trust and a range of model specifications, including instrumental variable estimation. We document that the effects of social trust on foreign ownership diminishes in the presence of organizational learning, better formal institutional development, conservative financial reporting, and asset transparency. We also show that foreign institutional investors from countries with a common law origin are more likely to incorporate trust-related information in their investment decisions.

We examine two competing views regarding the impact of competition among credit rating agencies on rating quality: the view that rating agencies do not sacrifice their reputation by inflating firm ratings, and the view that competition among rating agencies arising from the conflict of interest inherent in an “issuer pay” model creates pressure to inflate ratings. Using Fitch’s market share as a measure of competition among rating agencies and controlling for the endogeneity problem caused by unobservable industry effects, we find no relation between Fitch’s market share and ratings, suggesting that competition does not lead to rating inflation.

We investigate the stakeholder theory of capital structure from the perspective of a firm’s relations with its employees. We find that firms that treat their employees fairly (as measured by high employee‐friendly ratings) maintain low debt ratios. This result is robust to a variety of model specifications and endogeneity issues. The negative relation between leverage and a firm’s ability to treat employees fairly is also evident when we measure its ability by whether it is included in the Fortune magazine list, “100 Best Companies to Work For.” These results suggest that a firm’s incentive or ability to offer fair employee treatment is an important determinant of its financing policy.