Empirical Essays in Corporate Finance

Over the past twenty years, write-offs have grown in popularity. With the increased usage of write-offs, it is becoming more important to understand the mechanisms behind why companies take write-offs and how write-offs affect company performance. In this paper, I examine the cross-sectional determinants of the decision to take write-offs. I use a hand-collected dataset on write-offs that is much more comprehensive than existing write-off datasets. Contrary to much hype and scandals surrounding a few write-offs, I find that quality of governance is positively related to write-off decisions in the cross-section. My results also suggest that poor governance companies wait to take write-offs until it becomes inevitable, while well-monitored companies take write-offs sooner. As a result, the charge is substantially larger than the average write-off charge. When these poor governance companies announce write-offs, the announcement generates negative abnormal returns. However, when good corporate governance companies announce write-offs, the charge is substantially smaller than the average charge. These well-monitored companies take write-offs immediately following a problem. Following the write-off announcements of these types of companies, average announcement day effects exceed a positive six percent. These results suggest that companies with quality monitoring mechanisms use write-offs in a manner that is consistent with enhancing shareholder value. In my second essay I examine the effect of write-off announcements on the stock market liquidity of firms taking write-offs from 1980 to 2000. I find that there are substantial improvements in stock market liquidity following corporate write-offs. Spreads decrease and turnover volume increases after write-off announcements, which indicates an improvement in liquidity. The liquidity improvement is greater for better governed companies. I decompose bid-ask spreads and show that adverse selection costs decrease substantially as market participants respond to the write-off announcement. The evidence suggests a liquidity benefit of write-offs that must be weighed against any other perceived cost of write-offs. Such a liquidity benefit may validate that write-offs convey favorable information about the firm

Do corporate governance characteristics influence tax management?

This paper investigates how corporate governance plays a role in long-run tax management and contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, we add insight into the horizon problems related to executive and director compensation and show that incentive compensation provides long-term incentives to improve performance by establishing a link between higher pay-performance sensitivity and lower taxes. Second, this is one of the first papers, to our knowledge, to empirically examine the role of governance in corporate tax management from a long-term perspective in order to better understand the lasting effects of governance. We find that incentive compensation drives managers to make investments into longer-horizon pay outs such as tax management. Furthermore, we find that this investment into tax management benefits shareholders; better tax management is positively related to higher returns to shareholders. We also address the endogeneity issues of corporate governance and performance measures. Finally, our paper is unique in examining which type of tax management strategy (domestic or foreign) different firms focus on. Our results shed light into how governance can improve firm performance and increase shareholder value in the long run.Corporate governance Tax management

BACKDATING AND DIRECTOR INCENTIVES: MONEY OR REPUTATION?

Abstract We investigate how director incentives affect the occurrence of firms' backdating employee stock options. Directors with more wealth tied up in stock options may pursue activities that lead to personal gain, such as option backdating, which potentially increases the option recipient's compensation. We document a positive and significant association between director option compensation and the likelihood that firms backdate stock options. Our results question the effectiveness of director option compensation in aligning the interests with those of shareholders and help to explain the recent decline in the use of director option grants by many firms. Copyright (c) 2009 The Southern Finance Association and the Southwestern Finance Association.

Does carbon risk matter for corporate acquisition decisions?

In this study, we examine whether carbon risk matters in acquisitions. Using a firm's carbon emissions to proxy for carbon risk, we examine whether an acquirer's level of carbon emissions is related to the decision to engage in acquisitions and achieve subsequent acquisition returns. The results show that firms with higher emissions have an increased likelihood of acquiring foreign targets while, at the same time, having a decreased likelihood of acquiring domestic targets. Acquirers with large carbon footprints seek out targets in foreign countries that have low gross domestic product (GDP) or weak environmental, regulatory, or governance standards. We also examine the relationship between carbon emissions and announcement returns. We find that cross-border acquisition announcement returns are higher when acquirers with high carbon emissions acquire targets in countries with fewer regulations or weaker environmental standards. Focusing on the interplay of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and carbon emissions, we find that investors censure acquirers that promote CSR while also having high carbon emissions, thus resulting in worse abnormal returns. This is particularly the case if the target country is wealthy or has stronger country governance or strong environmental protection. Our findings add insight on the channels through which a focus on reducing carbon risk can add value for shareholders