[We theoretically and empirically address the endogeneity of corporate ownership structure and the cost of debt, with a novel emphasis on the role of control concentration in post-default firm restructuring. Control concentration raises agency costs of debt, and dominant shareholders trade off private benefits of control against higher borrowing costs in choosing their ownership stakes. Based on our theoretical predictions, and using an international sample of syndicated loans and unique dynamic ownership structure data, we present new evidence on the firm- and macro-level determinants of corporate control concentration and the cost of debt.]

[Using a proprietary dataset of institutional investors' equity transactions, we document that institutional trading desks can sustain relative performance over adjacent periods.We find that trading-desk skill is positively correlated with the performance of the institution's traded portfolio, suggesting that institutions that invest resources in developing execution abilities also invest in generating superior investment ideas. Although some brokers can deliver better executions consistently over time, our analysis suggests that trading-desk skill is not limited to a selection of better brokers. We conclude that the trade implementation process is economically important and can contribute to relative portfolio performance.]

This paper shows that local institutional investors are effective monitors of corporate behavior. Firms with high local ownership have better internal governance and are more profitable. These firms are also less likely to manage their earnings aggressively or backdate options and are less likely to be targets of class action lawsuits. Further, managers of such firms exhibit a lower propensity to engage in “empire building” and are less likely to “lead the quiet life”. Examining the local monitoring mechanisms, we find that local institutions are more likely to introduce shareholder proposals, increase CEO turnover, and reduce excess CEO pay.

Using firm level data from India, we examine the impact of ownership concentration on post-M&A performance of firms. Our analysis has implications for both the M&A literature, which emphasises the role of agency conflict between managers and owners of widely held companies as a key reason for M&A failures, and the corporate governance literature, especially in the context of emerging market economies. A cautious interpretation of our results suggests that while ownership concentration may reduce the manager–owner agency conflict, it may nevertheless precipitate other forms of agency conflict such that ownership concentration may not necessarily improve post-M&A performance. In particular, our results have implications for the literature on the agency conflict between large (or majority) shareholders and small (or minority) shareholders of a company, especially in contexts such as emerging market economies where corporate governance quality is weak.

We propose the use of stochastic frontier approach to modelling financial constraints of firms. The main advantage of the stochastic frontier approach over the stylised approaches that use pooled OLS or fixed effects panel regression models is that we can not only decide whether or not the average firm is financially constrained, but also estimate a measure of the degree of the constraint for each firm and for each time period, and also the marginal impact of firm characteristics on this measure. We then apply the stochastic frontier approach to a panel of Indian manufacturing firms, for the 1997–2006 period. In our application, we highlight and discuss the aforementioned advantages, while also demonstrating that the stochastic frontier approach generates regression estimates that are consistent with the stylised intuition found in the literature on financial constraint and the wider literature on the Indian credit/capital market.

We theoretically and empirically address the endogeneity of corporate ownership structure and the cost of debt, with a novel emphasis on the role of control concentration in post-default firm restructuring. Control concentration raises agency costs of debt, and dominant shareholders trade off private benefits of control against higher borrowing costs in choosing their ownership stakes. Based on our theoretical predictions, and using an international sample of syndicated loans and unique dynamic ownership structure data, we present new evidence on the firm- and macro-level determinants of corporate control concentration and the cost of debt.

We examine the valuation and capital allocation roles of voluntary disclosure when managers have private information regarding the firm’s investment opportunities, but an efficient market for corporate control influences their investment decisions. For managers with long‐term stakes in the firm, the equilibrium disclosure region is two‐tailed: only extreme good news and extreme bad news is disclosed in equilibrium. Moreover, the market’s stock price and investment responses to bad news disclosures are stronger than the responses to good news disclosures, which is consistent with the empirical evidence. We also find that myopic managers are more likely to withhold bad news in good economic times when markets can independently assess expected investment returns.

While the literature concerned with the predictability of stock returns is huge, surprisingly little is known when it comes to role of the choice of estimator of the predictive regression. Ideally, the choice of estimator should be rooted in the salient features of the data. In case of predictive regressions of returns there are at least three such features; (i) returns are heteroskedastic, (ii) predictors are persistent, and (iii) regression errors are correlated with predictor innovations. In this paper we examine if the accounting of these features in the estimation process has any bearing on our ability to forecast future returns. The results suggest that it does.

Using a proprietary dataset of institutional investors' equity transactions, we document that institutional trading desks can sustain relative performance over adjacent periods. We find that trading-desk skill is positively correlated with the performance of the institution's traded portfolio, suggesting that institutions that invest resources in developing execution abilities also invest in generating superior investment ideas. Although some brokers can deliver better executions consistently over time, our analysis suggests that trading-desk skill is not limited to a selection of better brokers. We conclude that the trade implementation process is economically important and can contribute to relative portfolio performance.