Debt-financed share buybacks generate positive short-term and long-run abnormal stock returns. Leveraged buyback firms have more debt capacity, higher marginal tax rate, lower excess cash and lower growth prospects ex ante, increase leverage and reduce investments more sharply ex post than cash-financed buyback firms. Firms that are over-levered ex-ante are associated with lower returns and real investments following leveraged buybacks. The lower announcement returns of over-levered firms are concentrated on firms with weaker corporate governance. The evidence is consistent with leveraged buybacks enabling firms to optimize their leverage, on average benefiting shareholders. The benefits decrease with a firm's leverage ex ante.

This paper analyzes the trading behavior of stock market investors. Purchases and sales are highly correlated when we divide investors geographically. Investors who live near a firm's headquarters react in a similar manner to releases of public information. We are able to make this identification by exploiting a unique feature of individual brokerage accounts in the People's Republic of China. The data allow us to pinpoint an investor's location at the time he or she places a trade. Our results are consistent with a simple, rational expectations model of heterogeneously informed investors.

Mutual fund returns are significantly related to stock characteristics in the cross-section after controlling for risk via factor models. We develop a new double-adjusted approach that controls for both factor model betas and stock characteristics in one performance measure. The new measure substantially affects performance rankings, with a quarter of funds experiencing a change in their percentile ranking greater than 10. Double-adjusted performance produces strong evidence of persistence in relative performance. Inference based on the new measure often differs, sometimes dramatically, from that based on traditional performance estimates. Received November 22, 2019; editorial decision June 28, 2020; Editor: Jeffrey Pontiff.

Financial distress is a prevalent issue among the youth. An influential stream of literature has argued that religion wields significant influence over human life. Using a representative sample of U.S. young people, we explore whether religiosity matters for financial distress. To deal with endogeneity issue, we exploit arguably exogeneous within-school variation in adolescents’ peers. By instrumenting an adolescent's own religiosity with the religiosity of their school peer group, we find that higher levels of religiosity causally and significantly reduce the likelihood of financial distress at young adulthood. Our results withstand a variety of robustness checks. To shed light on the mechanisms, we explore the impact of religiosity on an individual's sociability and various psychological attributes. We find that more religious individuals hold higher levels of self-control, a crucial attribute that aids in averting financial distress. Our study contributes to the literature by providing rigorous causal evidence that identifies religiosity as a meaningful predictor of reduced financial distress among young adults.

We study the effect of credit default swaps (CDSs) on the bond market. Using a comprehensive sample of U.S. corporate bonds, we document that the presence of CDSs significantly increases bond liquidity and reduces yield spreads for investment grade bonds. We show that CDSs influence the bond market by lowering the impact of fire sales of institutional bondholders and facilitating inventory management for bond dealers who absorb fire sale shocks. However, the liquidity provision role of CDSs gets weakened after the CDS Big Bang in 2009, potentially because of the requirement of large upfront payments.

We use an exogenous event, namely, the spillover effects of Hurricane Katrina on corporate bonds through the liquidation of bond holdings by insurance companies, to study how companies react to temporary changes in the relative availability of bond and bank financing. We find that the negative shock on bonds induces firms to shift from bond financing to bank-based borrowing and to shorten the debt maturity. This shift in debt policy does not revert in the long term. There is no significant change in capital structure, suggesting that the substitution from bonds to bank loans is sufficient for the amount of borrowing.

In this article, we examine the effect of social trust on local bias. Our evidence suggests that institutional investors located in high-trust regions of the United States exhibit lower local bias. Moreover, we find that high-trust investors are better diversified, suggesting that trust helps accomplish greater diversification. The results are not due to firm, demographic, or local economic characteristics. Additional analysis reveals that the documented informational advantage in local holdings exists only in low-trust regions. We show that this finding is consistent with a trust explanation.

We study the influence of multi-sector conglomerate firms on sectoral comovement. Using an innovative network model of firms and industries, we derive a novel measure of the co-concentration of industries in which two industries are more co-concentrated if they share greater exposure to the same conglomerate firms. Using time-series, cross-sectional, and longitudinal tests on establishment-level data from nearly all US firms over 1991 to 2019, we find that industries with higher co-concentration exhibit stronger comovement in employment, sales, and asset growth. Controlling for alternative explanations, a one-standard deviation increase in co-concentration corresponds to a 0.32-standard deviation increase in the comovement of employment growth. In variance-covariance decompositions, we find that firm-specific shocks explain nearly half of aggregate volatility and industry comovement and that conglomerates play a significant role in sectoral comovement. Our framework helps explain how idiosyncratic, firm-level shocks contribute to aggregate fluctuations and influence business cycles.

This paper investigates whether so-called anomalous returns predicted by accounting numbers reflect normal returns for risk or abnormal returns. It does so via a model showing how accounting numbers inform about normal returns if pricing were rational. The model equates expected returns to expectations of earnings and earnings growth, so that any variable that forecasts earnings and earnings growth also indicates the required return if the market prices those outcomes as risky. The empirical results confirm that many accounting anomaly variables (such as accruals, asset growth, and investment) forecast forward earnings and growth, and in the same direction in which they forecast returns. While the lack of an agreed-upon asset pricing model for required returns rules out definitive conclusions, the paper provides both a framework and supporting empirical results indicating that the observed “anomalous” returns associated with accounting numbers are consistent with rational pricing.

In March 2020, banks faced the largest increase in liquidity demands ever observed. Firms drew funds on a massive scale from preexisting credit lines in anticipation of cash flow and financial disruptions stemming from the advent of the COVID-19 crisis. The increase in liquidity demands was concentrated at the largest banks, who serve the largest firms. Precrisis financial condition did not constrain large banks’ liquidity supply. Coincident inflows of funds from both the Federal Reserve’s liquidity injection programs and depositors, along with strong preshock bank capital, explain why banks were able to accommodate these liquidity demands. (JEL G21, G28) Received June 7, 2020; editorial decision June 23, 2020 by Editor Isil Erel.