Do economic incentives govern information diffusion in markets? Using international banks’ advisory activities in corporate takeovers as their source of private information, we show in supervisory data that banks with closer ties to the target, but not the acquirer, advisor trade profitably in the target’s stock prior to the deal announcement. This trading behavior is associated with a higher premium paid by the acquirer without compromising the deal success. As the incentives of informed traders are aligned only with those of the target shareholders, which are represented by the target advisor, our evidence suggests strategic information transmission among these banks.

The previous literature finds a positive effect of institutional (relative to other investors’) ownership on firms’ innovation output . We study the impact of increases in the concentration of institutional investors’ ownership on firms’ decisions to invest in innovation and their innovation output. By reducing short-term earnings pressure, concentrated institutional investors’ ownership increases managers’ incentives to invest in R&D. However, it decreases firms’ acquisitions of external innovation due to empire-building and dilution concerns. Overall, firms’ future patents and citations decrease. Our results indicate that the previously found positive effect of institutional investors on innovation declines as the ownership of these investors becomes more concentrated. Despite that, we find that blockholder institutional ownership increases firm value. Hence, large institutional investors take measures to preserve the value of their ownership interests, even if they result in reduced innovation.

We examine the contractual evolution of poison pill design, focusing on lower ownership triggers, acting-in-concert provisions, and synthetic equity clauses that tailor pills to defend against shareholder activism. Using novel data on hedge funds' access to SEC filings as a proxy for intervention threats, we find that firms facing heightened activist threats are more likely to adopt anti-activist pills. Relative to comparable firms under activist scrutiny, pill adopters experience fewer subsequent activist interventions and are less likely to pursue activist-favored policies, such as reduced investment and increased buybacks. These findings contribute to policy debates over defensive measures against activist interventions.