This paper investigates the determinants of the market share of investment banks acting as advisors in mergers and tender offers. In both mergers and tender offers, bank market share is positively related to the contingent fee payments charged by the bank and to the percentage of deals completed in the past by the bank. It is unrelated to the performance of the acquirors advised by the bank in the past. In tender offers, the post-acquisition performance of the acquiror is negatively related to the contingent fee payments charged by the bank, suggesting that the contingent fee structure in tender offers ensures that investment banks focus on completing the deal.

This paper uses a methodology robust to recent criticisms of standard long-horizon event study tests to show that bidders in mergers underperform while bidders in tender offers overperform in the three years after the acquisition. However, the long-term underperformance of acquiring firms in mergers is predominantly caused by the poor post-acquisition performance of low book-to-market “glamour” firms. We interpret this finding as evidence that both the market and the management overextrapolate the bidder's past performance (as reflected in the bidder's book-to-market ratio) when they assess the desirability of an acquisition.

We analyze a sample of over 3,600 ex ante explicit severance pay agreements in place at 808 firms and show that firms set ex ante explicit severance pay agreements as one component in managing the optimal level of equity incentives. Younger executives are more likely to receive explicit contracts and better terms. Firms with high distress risk, high takeover probability, and high return volatility are significantly more likely to enter into new or revised severance contracts. Finally, ex post payouts to managers are largely determined by the ex ante contract terms.

[We examine a sample of 125 equity mutual funds that closed to new investment between 1993 and 2004. We find that funds close following a period of superior performance and abnormal fund inflows. Fund managers raise their fees when they close to compensate managers for losses in income due to the restrictions in size imposed by the fund closure decision. Managers reopen when fund size declines. However, they do not earn superior returns after reopening, suggesting that the fund closure decision does not provide information about superior fund managers.]

This paper examines the value of sell-side analysts to covered firms by documenting the effects on firm performance and investor interest after a complete loss of analyst coverage for periods of at least one year. We find that analyst coverage adds value to a firm both because it reduces information asymmetries about the firm's future performance and because it maintains investor recognition for that firm's stock. After the introduction of regulations that curtailed the informational advantage of analysts in the early 2000s, the investor recognition role of analysts remains important. Firms that lose all analyst coverage continue to suffer a significant deterioration in bid-ask spreads, trading volumes, and institutional presence but do not show a significant difference in subsequent performance relative to covered peers. In addition, controlling for other factors, we find that firms that lose all analyst coverage for one year are significantly more likely to delist than their covered peers. Our results provide insight into the reasons why firms place so much importance on analyst coverage.

We analyze a sample of over 3,600 ex ante explicit severance pay agreements in place at 808 firms and show that firms set ex ante explicit severance pay agreements as one component in managing the optimal level of equity incentives. Younger executives are more likely to receive explicit contracts and better terms. Firms with high distress risk, high takeover probability, and high return volatility are significantly more likely to enter into new or revised severance contracts. Finally, ex post payouts to managers are largely determined by the ex ante contract terms.

Corporate events happen in waves. In this paper, we examine the timing patterns of 5 different types of corporate event waves (new stock and seasoned equity issues, stock- and cash-financed acquisitions, and stock repurchases) using a comprehensive data set of more than 151,000 corporate transactions over the 25-year period from 1980 to 2004. We document a distinctive pattern, previously not found in the literature, in the way stock-related waves form. Corporate waves seem to start with new issue waves (seasoned equity offering preceding initial public offering waves), followed by stock-financed merger waves, followed in turn by repurchase waves. Our results hold over separate decades and across industries. Our results seem consistent with both the neoclassical efficiency hypothesis and the misvaluation hypothesis, and there are distinct periods when one or the other appears dominant.

We examine the ex ante ability of investors to identify superior mutual fund managers among the investor set likely most able, and with the greatest incentive to do so, their rivals. Identifying actual copycat funds via comparisons of trading in consecutive periods, we find little evidence to suggest that managers are able to detect superior funds. Copycats select funds with high prior performance and investment inflows, and the performance of the target fund reverses following copying initiation. If superior managers exist, our results suggest that the source of skill lies in private information obtained by these managers. These results are consistent with information models indicating that private, but not public, information can be profitable.

Dual-class share unifications have typically been argued to be beneficial for voting shareholders, who are usually compensated for the loss of their superior voting privileges. However, no covenants exist that make this compensation mandatory for voting shareholders. In this paper, we examine a subset of dual class share unifications from Italy where, in the main, voting shareholders are not offered any compensation in lieu of the loss of their superior voting rights. We present a simple model describing the conditions under which the controlling voting shareholder will choose not to offer compensation to minority voting shareholders as part of a share unification. Our empirical results support the model predictions.

Using a novel typology of serial acquirers, we examine several puzzles documented in the prior literature. We show that acquisitions by different types of acquirers are driven by different factors, they acquire different sizes of targets, and subsequent acquisitions by acquirers are predictable ex ante. Controlling for market anticipation, the most frequent serial acquirers do not earn declining returns as they continue acquiring, while less frequent acquirers do. Our methodology enhances our understanding of serial acquisition dynamics, anticipation, and economic value adjustments. The methodology is likely to be relevant to topics related to event anticipation beyond those covered in this study.