Using industrial firms from the United States, Germany, and Japan, we examine the effect of bank power on cash holdings. We show that Japanese firms hold more cash than U.S. or German firms. We also document that Japanese cash balances are affected by the monopoly power of banks. During periods with powerful banks, firms' high cash holdings are consistent with banks extracting rents. When banks weakened, Japanese cash levels became more like U.S. firms. We conclude that strong Japanese banks persuade firms to hold large cash balances. This is contrary to widely held beliefs about the Japanese governance system.

From 1998 to 2011, U.S. firms held more cash on average (but not at the median) than similar foreign firms (foreign twins) did. The average difference in cash holdings does not increase after 2008, and it is driven by highly R&D-intensive U.S. firms. Because there are almost no similarly R&D-intensive foreign firms, mean comparisons involving these U.S. firms are not reliable. Without these U.S. firms, neither U.S. multinational firms nor purely domestic U.S. firms hold more cash than their foreign twins do. Country characteristics have negligible explanatory power for differences in cash holdings between U.S. firms and their foreign twins.

[We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared with U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.]

[We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared with U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.]

While the Dodd–Frank Act (DFA) mandates board risk committees for large banks, we argue that such committees do not benefit all banks. Banks forced by the DFA to adopt a board risk committee do not experience a reduction in risk following adoption. In contrast, banks that voluntarily established risk committees before the DFA exhibit lower risk, especially when these committees possess greater risk expertise. Using unique interview data, we find that board risk committees serve as active monitors rather than merely rubber-stamping management proposals. However, regulatory-mandated tasks limit their monitoring role.

This paper examines whether firms are able to use acquisitions to ease their financial constraints. The results show that acquisitions do ease financing constraints for constrained acquirers. Relative to unconstrained acquirers, financially constrained firms are more likely to use undervalued equity to fund acquisitions and to target unconstrained and more liquid firms. Using a propensity score matched sample in a difference-in-difference framework, the results show that constrained acquirers become less constrained post-acquisition and relative to matched non-acquiring firms. This improvement is more pronounced for diversifying acquisitions and constrained firms that acquire rather than issue equity and retain the proceeds. Following acquisition, constrained acquirers raise more debt, increase investments, and reduce cash holdings relative to matched non-acquirers, consistent with experiencing reductions in financing constraints. These improvements are not seen for unconstrained acquirers. Finally, the familiar diversification discount is non-existent for financially constrained acquirers.

Using industrial firms from the United States, Germany, and Japan, we examine the effect of bank power on cash holdings. We show that Japanese firms hold more cash than U.S. or German firms. We also document that Japanese cash balances are affected by the monopoly power of banks. During periods with powerful banks, firms’ high cash holdings are consistent with banks extracting rents. When banks weakened, Japanese cash levels became more like U.S. firms. We conclude that strong Japanese banks persuade firms to hold large cash balances. This is contrary to widely held beliefs about the Japanese governance system.

Differences in culture, proxied by differences in religion and language, cannot be ignored when examining why investor protection differs across countries. We show that a country's principal religion predicts the cross-sectional variation in creditor rights better than a country's natural openness to international trade, its language, its income per capita, or the origin of its legal system. Catholic countries protect the rights of creditors less well than Protestant countries. A country's natural openness to international trade mitigates the influence of religion on creditor rights. Culture proxies are also helpful in understanding how investor rights are enforced across countries.

U.S. firms currently hold a $2trillion cash stockpile. We examine if cash stockpiles fuel cash acquisitions by studying the method of payment decision for cash-rich firms. Surprisingly, cash-rich firms are 23% less likely to make cash bids than stock bids, relative to firms that are not cash rich. We examine several potential explanations related to omitted variable bias and endogeneity and the result remains. More specifically, the results are robust to explanations related to agency, financial constraints, tax-related explanations, equity overvaluation, and capital structure. Our evidence implies that the link between cash stockpiles and cash acquisitions is not obvious.

Motivated by recent changes to corporate governance standards around the world, we use a regulatory shock that substantially altered the governance structure for some firms to shed light on the long-term impact of mandates that are of global interest. Firms affected by this shock had lower values and non-mandated governance practices that were less shareholder friendly before the mandates were in effect when compared to unaffected matched peers. In the post-mandate period, we document a 48% tightening of the relative value gap, and show that this gap relates to the continued use of less shareholder friendly non-mandated governance practices. Our results suggest that governance mandates can tighten, but not eliminate, the value gap between poorly and well governed firms, and that firms affected by the shock continue to have less shareholder friendly governance cultures long after regulatory intervention.