Stock-based compensation (SBC) reduces the value of shareholder equity, ceteris paribus, and is a significant and growing expense for many firms. Despite its valuation implications and its growing importance, anecdotal evidence suggests that market participants ignore SBC in valuation. We first find that firms with higher SBC exhibit both higher valuation ratios and lower returns, suggesting overvaluation. This pattern is stronger for firms with larger analyst coverage, implying that the sell-side optimism is an important driver of the overvaluation. We then examine how financial analysts treat SBC in their valuation models. We find that analysts exclude more expenses in their street earnings forecasts and provide more optimistically biased target prices for firms with higher SBC. A hand-collected sample of analyst reports indicates that analysts who ignore SBC in valuation derive optimistically biased price targets, whereas analysts who treat SBC as an expense are unbiased on average. Together, our evidence indicates that market participants’ failure to account for stock-based compensation as an expense leads to the overvaluation of equity.

This study examines how short-selling threats affect auditors. During 2005–2007, the SEC ordered a pilot program in which one-third of the Russell 3000 index firms were arbitrarily chosen to be exempted from short-sale price tests. As a result, these stocks faced significantly higher short-selling threats. We implement a difference-in-differences test with firm fixed effects to show that auditors react to the increased threats and charge higher audit fees to the pilot firms. Further, we find that the impact only exists when auditors are concerned with the bankruptcy risk or when managers are less likely disciplined by short sellers.

Using hand-collected information, we find that analysts who own stock in a company they follow make more informative recommendations and exert more effort in covering the company. However, we also find that analysts with stock ownership issue more optimistic target price forecasts. These findings suggest that analysts’ stock ownership enhances the credibility of their recommendations by conveying their superior information, but also induces analysts to bias upwards their target price forecasts. Surprisingly, we find that 56% of analysts owning stock terminate their ownership while having a buy recommendation outstanding, suggesting a potentially widespread violation of the regulations on analysts’ research.

Short interest is currently required to be disclosed twice per month, but regulators have sought to increase this frequency. Meanwhile, short interest information from private third‐party vendors has emerged to meet investor demand on a daily basis. We find that daily private‐sector data strongly predict bimonthly regulatory disclosure. Furthermore, private‐sector data help price discovery, albeit with modest economic magnitude. Investors tend to underreact to the information content of private‐sector data mainly due to limits to arbitrage rather than market inattention. Despite the costly access to private‐sector data, we find no evidence that retail investors are harmed in their trades. Overall, our findings highlight the interplay between private‐sector and regulatory solutions in enhancing financial market transparency.

We estimate the prevalence and drivers of short squeezes after short‐selling attacks. Positive returns after attacks have a disproportionate tendency to fully reverse and are accompanied by heightened short covering, consistent with the presence of short squeezes. We assess and find no support for non‐squeeze drivers of these positive return reversals and show they are more likely to be accompanied by squeeze‐related news articles, increased stock volatility, and disruptions in the stock lending market. Using positive return reversals as a proxy for short squeezes, we estimate that 15% of short attacks experience squeezes, and squeeze risk increases with short sellers’ visibility but decreases with the credibility of their evidence. Additionally, squeezes appear to be precipitated by actions of firms and investors, including insider purchases, share recalls, retail investor trading, and firm disclosures. Our findings quantify a material risk and check on activist short selling and are especially timely given recent proposed short‐selling restrictions.

A few highly successful firms (“superstar firms”) have captured large market shares and earned massive profits in recent decades. We examine whether superstar firms are associated with a greater likelihood of financial distress for firms exposed to them in product markets. Building on recent research, we identify superstars as firms with the highest markups in the industry and whose industry markup share increases over time. We then measure, with product similarity scores, a firm’s overall product market exposure to superstars. We document that firms with greater exposure are more likely to file for bankruptcy. We examine why superstar exposure is associated with bankruptcy and show that firms with the greater superstar exposure exhibit weaker financial performance and greater riskiness. Furthermore, we show that the association between superstar exposure and the likelihood of bankruptcy strengthens when superstars have greater market power.