The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between strategic alliances and the cost of debt, proxied by the at-issue yield spread of bond offerings. We hypothesize that the participation of strategic alliances lowers a firm’s cost of debt because it improves the level and stability of future profit streams and reduces information asymmetry among investors. Based on 2150 bond-issuing firms during the period 1985–2009, we find evidence consistent with this argument. Furthermore, we find that the mitigating effect of strategic alliances on the debt cost is much more pronounced for firms with higher product market competition, more severe financial constraints, and greater R&D investments. Taken together, this is the first paper to examine the importance of strategic alliances in the bond market and our results highlight that corporate alliance activity is valued outside the equity market and creates additional benefits that result in lower cost of debt financing.

Compensation contracts including incentive instruments not only provide executives with positive incentives to increase shareholder wealth, but also create a negative value-dilution effect for existing shareholders. This study investigates this dilemma by conducting a benefit-cost analysis under a proposed structural form valuation framework. Our design mechanism shows that, given their firms’ current capital structure, shareholders are always capable of designing an optimal compensation contract to maximize their wealth. Due to the different research issue and assumptions, unlike findings of most previous studies, our model proposes that in a firm with a higher leverage ratio shareholders should provide a contract with higher incentive intensity for managers, and this proposition is supported by the empirical analyses which examine the sample of S&P index firms over the period 1992–2006 after adopting an updated fixed effects model.

Relying on the size of partner signatures in audit reports in Taiwan to measure their narcissism, we find that audit quality rises with partner narcissism. Our analysis also implies that changes in audit quality are positively associated with changes in partner narcissism stemming from mandatory partner rotation. We also find that the impact of partner narcissism on audit quality only manifests when auditor independence is more likely to be compromised, although it does not vary with engagement complexity. These results suggest that partner narcissism improves audit quality mainly through increased auditor independence, rather than auditor competence. Additionally, we document that although partner narcissism has no perceptible impact on the incidence of Type I going concern reporting errors, it is negatively associated with the probability of making a Type II error, implying that more narcissistic partners are less likely to succumb to client pressure to issue opportunistic reports. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources as identified in the text.