Consistent with investors having limited attention, we posit that when faced with competing earnings announcements, investors behave as if they queue the announcements based on a firm or earnings announcement attribute. We focus on two potential queuing attributes: (1) firm visibility, and (2) the expected cost of processing the earnings announcements. We find no support for queuing based on the latter, but find a statistically significant and economically meaningful queuing effect based on firm visibility. Earnings announcements made by firms that are more visible than a given firm—but not by firms that are less visible—mitigate the announcement window market response to that firm's unexpected earnings, with a corresponding magnification in its post-earnings announcement drift. Further, the effects of visibility-based queuing are more pronounced for days with greater clustering of earnings announcements. Additional analysis suggests that individual investors—not institutional investors—drive the queuing effect.

Prior research documents a negative aggregate earnings-returns relation. In contrast, we posit that the sign of the relation varies, depending upon the macroeconomic and financial market conditions that exist in the earnings announcement quarter. We argue that the existing macroeconomic and financial market conditions influence market participants’ frame of reference, which in turn affects whether they interpret aggregate earnings surprises to be informative about the expected inflation component of the discount rate, the market risk premium component of the discount rate, or aggregate future cash flows. Consistent with this, we find that the sign of the aggregate earnings-returns relation changes numerous times across our sample period. We also find that market participants interpret aggregate earnings to be informative about changes in expected inflation (market risk premium) when the sign of the aggregate earnings-returns relation is negative (positive). Finally, we identify macroeconomic and financial market conditions under which the aggregate earnings-returns relation is more (less) likely to be negative (positive).

We explore the impact of religious norms on the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value. Employing a longitudinal sample of publicly listed U.S. firms, we document that strong local religious norms in the area surrounding firms’ headquarters attenuate the positive effect of CSR on firm value. In cross-sectional analyses, we find that the attenuating effect of strong local religious norms is amplified for firms with heightened litigation risk. We also find that the positive effect of CSR on firm value is amplified for firms headquartered in areas where prevailing religious norms are more tolerant of risk-taking. Further, we find that strong religious norms attenuated the positive association between CSR and abnormal stock returns during the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Taken together, our findings cast local religious norms as an important contextual factor that influences the insurance value of CSR—the protection that CSR affords against stakeholder reactions to negative events.

We study the impact of the staggered adoption of anti-collusion leniency legislations around the world on IPO activity. We document that the passage of leniency legislations prompts IPO activity. The effect is amplified in more concentrated industries , while it is mitigated in countries with more stringent competition laws in place and countries in which investors have a lower ability to diversify risk in the financial market. Collectively, these findings are consistent with the view that, by enhancing product market competition, leniency legislations increase the benefits for firms from going public, resulting in higher IPO activity. The results of supplemental analyses suggest that the passage of leniency legislations leads to less underpriced IPOs and a more efficient use of IPO proceeds, and prompts firms with less proprietary information to go public.

We document that global board reforms are associated with a significant reduction in the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs). The effect is amplified for IPOs with greater agency problems and mitigated for IPOs certified by reputable intermediaries, IPOs with greater disclosure specificity, and IPOs in countries with better shareholder protection and stringent financial reporting regulations. Furthermore, global board reforms have led to an improvement in the long-term market performance, proceeds, and subscription level of IPOs and have enhanced board independence in the issuing firms. Our findings suggest that global board reforms have strengthened board oversight in the issuing firms, leading to less underpriced IPOs.

We find that stock liquidity increases stock price crash risk. To identify the causal effect, we use the decimalization of stock trading as an exogenous shock to liquidity. This effect is increasing in a firm’s ownership by transient investors and nonblockholders. Liquid firms have a higher likelihood of future bad earnings news releases, which are accompanied by greater selling by transient investors, but not blockholders. Our results suggest that liquidity induces managers to withhold bad news, fearing that its disclosure will lead to selling by transient investors. Eventually, accumulated bad news is released all at once, causing a crash.

We develop an intertemporal asset pricing model where cash-flow news, discount-rate news, and their second moments are priced by the market. This model generalizes the market-return decomposition framework, showing that intertemporal considerations imply a decomposition of squared market returns (coskewness risk). Our model accounts for 68% of the return variation across portfolios sorted by size, book-to-market ratio, momentum, investment, and profitability for a modern U.S. sample period. Further, our findings highlight the importance of covariation risk, that is, the risk of simultaneous unfavorable shocks to cash flows and discount rates, in understanding equity risk premia.

Using federal judge ideology as an exogenous measure of issuing firms’ litigation risk, we document that the initial public offerings (IPOs) of the firms headquartered in more liberal circuits are more underpriced. The effect is mitigated when plaintiffs’ pleading standards are more stringent and is amplified when judges have more discretion in their decisions. The effect is also amplified among deep pocketed issuing firms, while it is mitigated among issuing firms hiring reputable intermediaries in the IPO process. The results of additional analysis suggest that issuing firms located in more liberal circuits are more likely to become targets of lawsuits after their IPOs and that these lawsuits are less likely to be dismissed by the courts and result in larger settlements. Collectively, our findings underscore the salience of litigation risk stemming from the issuing firms’ legal environment in driving IPO underpricing.