We hypothesize that a source of commonality in a stock's liquidity arises from the correlated liquidity demand of the stock's investors. Focusing on correlated trading of mutual funds, we find that stocks with high mutual fund ownership have comovements in liquidity about twice as large as those for stocks with low mutual fund ownership. Further analysis shows that the channels for these comovements derive from both common ownership across funds and funds' correlated liquidity shocks. We obtain inferences supporting causality from an exogenous flow shock for mutual funds in the aftermath of the 2003 mutual fund scandal.

We hypothesize that a source of commonality in a stock’s liquidity arises from the correlated liquidity demand of the stock’s investors. Focusing on correlated trading of mutual funds, we find that stocks with high mutual fund ownership have comovements in liquidity about twice as large as those for stocks with low mutual fund ownership. Further analysis shows that the channels for these comovements derive from both common ownership across funds and funds’ correlated liquidity shocks. We obtain inferences supporting causality from an exogenous flow shock for mutual funds in the aftermath of the 2003 mutual fund scandal.

We show that gender diversity in corporate boards could improve firm value because of the contributions that women make to the board. Prior studies examine valuation effects of gender-diverse boards and reach mixed conclusions. To help resolve this conundrum, we consider how gender diversity could affect firm value, that is, what mechanisms could explain how female directors benefit corporate board performance. We hypothesize and provide evidence that women directors contribute to boards by offering specific functional expertise, often missing from corporate boards. The additional expertise increases board heterogeneity which Kim and Starks (2015) show can increase firm value.

We survey institutional investors to better understand their role in the corporate governance of firms. Consistent with a number of theories, we document widespread behind‐the‐scenes intervention as well as governance‐motivated exit. These governance mechanisms are viewed as complementary devices, with intervention typically occurring prior to a potential exit. We further find that long‐term investors and investors that are less concerned about stock liquidity intervene more intensively. Finally, we find that most investors use proxy advisors and believe that the information provided by such advisors improves their own voting decisions.