We examine the determinants and outcomes of Chief Executive Officers ( CEO s) accepting a $1 salary, a compensation practice that occurs relatively frequently in high‐profile firms and is debated by regulators, investors, and the media. Using a hand‐collected sample of 93 CEO s from 91 firms between 1993 and 2011, we examine the triggers preceding the $1 salary decision, the factors associated with the decision, subsequent stock returns, and the outcomes for the CEO s. Our evidence is consistent with two explanations for the phenomenon: (i) it is a gesture of sacrifice by CEO s of firms in crisis, and (ii) it is a signal of better future performance by CEO s of growing firms. Our analyses highlight the two different circumstances and shed light on an interesting debate that has thus far been supported only by anecdotal evidence.

We posit that a change in analyst interest in a firm is an early indicator of the firm's future fundamentals, capital market activities, and stock returns. We measure increases in analyst interest by obser.ving analysts who do not cover a firm but participate in that firm's earnings conference call, and we measure decreases in analyst interest by observing analysts who cover a firm, yet are absent from that firm's call. We find that increases in analyst interest are positively associated with future changes in firm fundamentals and capital market activities, while decreases in analyst interest are negatively associated with capital market activities. We also find that increases (decreases) in analyst interest are positively (negatively) correlated with future stock returns over the next three months and that a hedge portfolio yields a significant abnormal return. Overall, our study shows that analyst interest is a novel and early indicator of future firm fundamentals and capital market consequences.