This paper constructs a new measure of attention allocation by local investors relative to nonlocals using aggregate search volume from Google. We first present a conceptual framework in which local investors optimally choose to focus their attention on local stocks when they receive private news, leading to an asymmetric allocation of attention between local and nonlocal investors. Consistent with the main prediction of this framework, we find that firms attracting abnormally high asymmetric attention from local relative to nonlocal investors earn higher returns. A portfolio that goes long in stocks with high asymmetric attention and short in stocks with low asymmetric attention has an alpha of 32 basis points per month. The results are stronger for stocks with a greater degree of information friction. The new measure of asymmetric attention allows one to infer the arrival of unobservable private information by observing investors’ attention allocation behavior. This paper was accepted by Karl Diether, finance.

This paper is the first to investigate the corporate governance role of shareholderinitiated proxy proposals in European firms. While proposals in the US are nonbinding even if they pass the shareholder vote, they are legally binding in the UK and most of Continental Europe. Nonetheless, submissions remain relatively infrequent in Continental Europe in particular, with major variations across countries in ownership structures, monitoring incentives, and the laws and regulations governing shareholder access to the proxy. We use sample selection models to analyze target selection and proposal success in terms of the voting outcomes and the stock price effects, and make several contributions to the literature. First, proposal submissions remain infrequent compared to the US in Continental Europe in particular. In the UK proposals typically relate to a proxy contest seeking board changes, while in Continental Europe they are more focused on specific governance issues. Second, there is some evidence that the proposal sponsors are valuable monitors, because the target firms tend to underperform and have low leverage. The sponsors also observe the identity of the voting shareholders, because proposal probability increases in the target's ownership concentration and the equity stake of institutional investors. Third, while proposals enjoy limited voting success across Europe, they are relatively more successful in the UK. The outcomes are strongest for proposals targeting the board but are also affected by the target characteristics including the CEO's pay-performance sensitivity. Finally, proposals are met with strong negative stock price effects when they are voted upon at general meetings. This suggests that rather than attribute them control benefits, the market often interprets proposals and their failure to pass the vote as a negative signal of governance concerns. Indeed, the market responds better to proposals submitted against large firms with low leverage, which is consistent with agency considerations. However, the stock price effects are most negative for poorly performing firms with low market-to-book ratios, which implies that the proposal outcomes only intensify the market's concerns over firms that have previously underperformed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract