We thank CFO magazine, Fuqua's Center on Leadership and Ethics (COLE), and Columbia Business School External Relations for their partnership in conducting the survey; the results presented herein do not necessarily reflect their views. We are especially grateful to our research team of 56 RAs who helped transcribe interviews, discover CXO emails, and send personal invitations to participants. We thank the following people for providing helpful feedback on the

No abstract

Prior work suggests that more valuable patents are cited more and this view has become standard in the empirical innovation literature. Using an NPE-derived dataset with patentspecific revenues we find that the relationship of citations to value in fact forms an inverted-U, with fewer citations at the high end of value than in the middle. Since the value of patents is concentrated in those at the high end, this is a challenge to both the empirical literature and the intuition behind it. We attempt to explain this relationship with a simple model of innovation, allowing for both productive and strategic patents. We find evidence of greater use of strategic patents where it would be most expected: among corporations, in fields of rapid development, in more recent patents and where divisional and continuation applications are employed. These findings have important implications for our basic understanding of growth, innovation, and intellectual property policy.JEL Codes: O3, L2, K1.

This paper empirically investigates the relationship between institutional holdings and capital structure. Institutions may affect capital structure through their monitoring and information-gathering roles. At the same time, institutions may gravitate toward firms with specific capital structures, forming leverage-based investment clienteles. Using implied trades generated from mutual fund outflows as an instrument for institutional holdings, and a semi-natural experiment in which addition to the S&P 500 Index provides an exogenous shock to institutional holdings, we find that institutional holdings are a significant determinant of firms' capital structures: A change in institutional holdings causes an opposite change in leverage. Moreover, using dynamic panel estimation, we find that while institutions affect capital structure decisions, changes in leverage do not affect institutional holdings, and there is no evidence of a clientele effect. Finally, we find that firms lower their leverage in response to increased institutional holdings by becoming more likely to issue equity, and less likely to increase debt. While our findings are consistent with models in which institutions substitute for debt by monitoring and reducing information asymmetry problems, further evidence suggests that the effect on asymmetric information dominates.