The COVID-19 pandemic substantially impacted many aspects of regular life including financial markets. The increased media attention and slowdown associated with the pandemic provide the opportunity to explore how both institutional and retail traders react to an attention-grabbing event. We examine how the market responded to a unique presidential press conference including CEOs of eight publicly-listed U.S. companies addressing the U.S.’s response to the pandemic. Using the press conference on March 13, 2020, we examine the effect on the trading volatility and returns for each of the eight companies represented. We find positive abnormal returns for the companies participating in the press conference. Using the Robintrack data aggregated from the Robinhood retail trading platform and intraday TAQ data, we see that both retail and institutional trading volume increased on the press conference day. However, the increase in retail trading approximately doubled the increase in institutional trading. For the two companies with the lowest Robinhood user ownership prior to the press conference, ownership more than doubled within an hour of the press conference. Panel VAR analysis including control firms shows the press conference resulted in significant intraday returns, volume, and buy-order imbalances in participating firms’ stock.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact hosting the Super Bowl has on audit completion and financial reporting timeliness for companies headquartered in Super Bowl hosting cities. Design/methodology/approach Using 16 years of financial reporting data, this study uses the Super Bowl and related activities, combined with required filings during “busy season,” as a natural experiment to examine how audit firms navigate short-term, exogenously imposed but anticipated, audit team capacity constraints. Findings Companies headquartered in a city hosting the Super Bowl, during busy season, have longer audit report lags (by approximately three days, in comparison to non-hosting busy season audits) and less timely securities and exchange commission (SEC) (10-K) filings. The authors find no evidence that Super Bowl hosting affects audit fees or earnings announcement timeliness. Practical implications When confronted with anticipated capacity shocks, audit firms take longer to complete the audit, absorbing the financial costs of the delay and maintaining audit quality, resulting in less timely financial reporting. Originality/value This study demonstrates the costs of Super Bowl-related inefficiencies and contributes to our understanding of how auditors navigate capacity shocks. This study provides evidence that auditors can effectively manage business risk and continue to facilitate providing timely and accurate information to financial statement users in the face of a capacity shock.

Motivated by shareholders' interest in combating executive wealth expropriation through the merger and acqusition (M&A) process, we study how mutual funds influence firm behavior around an acquisition through votes against management proposals. We find that mutual funds reduce the chief executive officer's ability to extract rents during the M&A process by voting against management-sponsored compensation proposals after the acquisition, thus lowering both excess compensation and increasing pay-for-performance sensitivity. Furthermore, mutual fund voting magnifies the impact on negatively performing firms and firms with a larger amount of the mutual fund's holdings in the firm.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact firm proximity to financial centers has on announcement returns and time to deal completion for mergers and acquisitions. Design/methodology/approach Using a data set of merger and acquisition activity from 1986 to 2014, target and acquiring firms are classified as rural or urban based on their geographic proximity to major financial centers. The impact of this proximity on short-term acquisition announcement returns and on the amount of time required to complete the transaction are tested. Findings Markets react more favorably to the acquisition of firms headquartered in a rural area, likely due to increased information advantage on the part of the acquiring firm. Furthermore, the acquisition of a rural firm requires greater time to completion. Practical implications Acquiring firms may be able to use information asymmetry to their advantage when acquiring firms located in a more rural setting with higher levels of information asymmetry. However, this requires the acquiring firm to generate an informational advantage and will also require a greater time commitment on average to complete the deal. Originality/value While prior literature has demonstrated that the distance between target and acquirer can affect acquisition returns and time to deal completion, this study adds to the literature by demonstrating that the geographic location of the target firm relative to major financial hubs can have a unique effect on mergers and acquisitions as well.

Using a sample of mergers and acquisitions from 1985 to 2014, we examine the impact of proximity between target and acquirer as a measure of information asymmetry. We find geographic distance has a significant impact on acquisitions premiums and time to completion, conditional on the size of the target firm. Small targets receive lower premiums and have a faster time to completion the closer they are to their acquirer. Conversely, large targets have a slower time to deal completion the closer their proximity. We conclude geographic distance has a substantial impact on acquisitions.

Using a sample of 20 finance journals from 1985 to 2014, we develop a robust, iterative loop ranking system for journals, universities, and doctoral programs across five-year intervals. Unlike past models, our dynamic model requires minimal reliance on external rankings. New journals create an immediate impact on rankings, likely because they attract high-profile authors in early issues. Niche journals rank higher than broad-based journals outside the top five. Our results demonstrate increased productivity of international universities and nonacademic institutions relative to U.S. universities. International doctoral programs experience similar increases in graduate productivity. Over time, collaboration between authors at different institutions increases.