Prominent policy makers assert that managerial short-termism was at the root of the subprime crisis of 2007–2009. Prior scholarly research, however, largely rejects this assertion. Using a more comprehensive measure of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) incentives for short-termism, we uncover evidence that short-termism indeed played a role. Firms whose CEOs were contractually allowed to sell or exercise more of their stock and options holdings sooner had more subprime exposure, a higher probability of financial distress, and lower risk-adjusted stock returns during the crisis, as well as higher fines and settlements for subprime-related fraud.

This paper tests a theory conjecturing that cross-listing can insulate firms from potential hostile takeovers owing to the increased cost concern of bidders. We find a significant and positive relation between the corporate control threat and the likelihood that firms cross-list in a foreign country. Firms facing takeover threats are more likely to choose hosting countries with greater accounting differences from the US GAAP. Subsample evidence suggests that cross-listing is more likely to be used as an antitakeover device if firms have foreign market exposure or when all-cash offers are less likely. Tests based on quasi-natural experiments provide further support.

This paper develops a simple model of firm entry, competition, and exit in oligopolistic markets. It features toughness of competition, sunk entry costs, and market-level demand and cost shocks, but assumes that firms' expected payoffs are identical when entry and survival decisions are made. We prove that this model has an essentially unique symmetric Markov-perfect equilibrium, and we provide an algorithm for its computation. Because this algorithm only requires finding the fixed points of a finite sequence of contraction mappings, it is guaranteed to converge quickly.