To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Are Share Repurchases Really Flexible?

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2026 61(1), 176-205 open access
This article documents a trend of declining flexibility in share repurchase policies over the last 4 decades. We show that repurchases have become particularly sticky for firms with repurchase programs in place. We also exploit the additional inflexibility within existing repurchase programs to show that repurchase stickiness can have real effects for firms. Using the 2008 financial crisis as a shock to firms’ ability to raise capital, we find that firms with ongoing share repurchase programs ending after Dec. 2007 reduced investment, employment, and R&D spending by more than similar firms with programs ending before the onset of the crisis.

Can Human Capital Explain Income-Based Disparities in Financial Services?

Review of Financial Studies 2026 39(6), 1785-1822
Research shows that access to high-quality financial services varies with local income and wealth. We study how financial firms’ internal allocation of human capital contributes to these disparities. Using a near-comprehensive panel of over 350,000 U.S. mortgage loan officers, we document large and persistent differences in productivity and performance. We find that firms’ hiring and promotion practices allocate workers with less experience or poor track records to branches serving low-income customers. Further, the consequences of poor performance differ by location: low sales, bad loans, and misconduct are more tolerated in low-income branches, exacerbating income-based disparities in financial services.

The (Missing) Relation between Acquisition Announcement Returns and Value Creation

Journal of Finance 2026 81(3), 1265-1320 open access
Cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) computed around acquisition announcements are widely considered to be market‐based assessments of expected value creation. We show, however, that announcement returns do not correlate with commonly used and new measures of ex post outcomes. A simple characteristics‐based model using standard information known at the announcement date can predict these outcomes reasonably well, yet CAR even fails to capture the predictions from this model. Evidence suggests that information about the stand‐alone acquirer dominates CAR, making it virtually impossible to extract deal‐related information. We conclude that CAR is an unreliable measure of expected value creation.