Posts Tagged ‘Denis Sosyura’

Divisional Managers and Internal Capital Markets

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday August 6, 2012 at 9:33 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Ran Duchin of the Department of Finance at the University of Washington and Denis Sosyura of the Department of Finance at the University of Michigan.

In our paper, Divisional Managers and Internal Capital Markets, forthcoming in the Journal of Finance, we study the role of divisional managers in internal capital budgeting.

While the capital budgeting process is one of the most fundamental corporate decisions, introduced at the very beginning of virtually any finance textbook, we still know relatively little about this area of the inner workings of a firm. Our paper seeks to advance our knowledge of this corporate decision by studying the role of human capital in a firm’s capital budgeting and the involvement of managers at various levels of hierarchy. In particular, we construct a hand-collected dataset of divisional managers at the S&P 500 firms and examine the effect of managerial influence on investment decisions and firm value. We study managerial influence via both formal channels (e.g., managers’ board membership and seniority), and informal channels (e.g., managers’ social connections to the CEO via prior employment, education, and nonprofit organizations).

…continue reading: Divisional Managers and Internal Capital Markets

Do Firms Manipulate Their Stock Prices? Causal Evidence from M&A

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday February 29, 2012 at 9:29 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Kenneth Ahern and Denis Sosyura, both of the Department of Finance at the University of Michigan.

In the paper, Who Writes the News? Corporate Press Releases During Merger Negotiations, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we show that firms manipulate their stock prices during merger negotiations in order to affect the terms of the transaction. We argue that this strategy is made possible by the loose regulation of corporate disclosure. In particular, U.S. federal laws generally do not require firms to publicly disclose all material corporate events when they occur. Instead, firms have significant flexibility with respect to the content and timing of their press releases. We show that firms strategically exploit the flexibility afforded by the law to influence their stock prices precisely when they benefit the most from short-term manipulation.

To identify firms with incentives to manage their stock prices, we focus on stock acquisitions, a setting where a short-term change in firms’ stock prices has a long-term effect on merger outcomes. If an acquirer in a stock acquisition can temporarily raise its stock price during a short time window when the stock exchange ratio is determined (usually several weeks), it can issue fewer of its shares for each target share and reduce the true cost of the takeover. To establish causal evidence of price manipulation, we exploit the difference in the time period when the terms of the merger are determined in fixed-exchange ratio vs. floating-exchange ratio stock acquisitions. These two groups of transactions are very similar along firm and deal characteristics, but have a clear dichotomy in the timing of media management incentives.

…continue reading: Do Firms Manipulate Their Stock Prices? Causal Evidence from M&A

Did the Bailout Encourage Risk-Taking?

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday October 24, 2011 at 9:53 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura, both of the Department of Finance at the University of Michigan.

In the paper, Safer Ratios, Riskier Portfolios: Banks’ Response to Government Aid, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we investigate the effect of TARP on bank risk taking. One of the key features of the past decade has been an increased role of government regulation, which culminated in the bailout of over 700 firms under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008. At the forefront of an ongoing regulatory debate is the potential effect of the bailout on the risk-taking behavior of financial institutions, since imprudent risk-taking is often blamed for leading to the crisis in the first place. On the one hand, recent regulatory reforms, including the EESA, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and Basel III, were tasked with promoting financial stability and preventing excessive risk-taking by financial institutions. On the other hand, the bailout sent a signal of implicit protection of certain financial institutions, which could encourage risk-taking as a response to a perceived safety net for institutions that encounter financial distress.

We study three channels of bank operations – retail lending, corporate lending, and financial investments. We use hand-collected data on bank applications for government capital to control for the selection of fund recipients and investigate the effect of both application approvals and denials. To distinguish banks’ risk taking behavior from changes in economic conditions, we also control for the volume and quality of credit demand based on micro-level data on home mortgages and corporate loans.

…continue reading: Did the Bailout Encourage Risk-Taking?

 
  •  » A "Web Winner" by The Philadelphia Inquirer
  •  » A "Top Blog" by LexisNexis
  •  » A "10 out of 10" by the American Association of Law Librarians Blog
  •  » A source for "insight into the latest developments" by Directorship Magazine