This paper studies the effects of the oil price shocks on local banks, and the propagation of the shocks through banks’ branching networks. Exposed banks with significant operations in oil-concentrated counties experienced a decline in demand deposit, a surge in credit line drawdowns, and a jump in troubled loans. Facing liquidity pressure, banks were forced to sell liquid assets, offer higher deposit rates, and reduce lending to small businesses and mortgage borrowers in unaffected markets. The effect is magnified when banks do not have strong community ties, while it is mitigated if banks have higher liquidity buffers, or sufficiently dispersed branching networks. I further document that healthy unexposed banks’ capacity to substitute credit supply is quite limited, providing fresh evidence from the perspective of bank competition.

We document that borrowers of banks that received capital support under TARP/CPP significantly increased their quarterly provision of trade credit (accounts receivable) during the crisis by 5.2%, while borrowers of other banks did not. The effect is strongest in 2008Q4, and larger for pre-crisis riskier, growth-oriented and bank-dependent firms and for firms that borrow from pre-crisis smaller, less profitable and better capitalized CPP banks. Our difference-in-differences analysis shows that the effect is caused by CPP and not by heterogeneity between firms, banks and time periods. Our study provides novel evidence that suggests a beneficial multiplier effect of bank bailouts.

This paper examines corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A) outcomes under lender scrutiny. Using the unique shocks of U.S. supervisory stress testing, we find that firms under increased lender scrutiny after their relationship banks fail stress tests engage in fewer but higher-quality M&A deals. Evidence from comprehensive supervisory data reveals improved credit quality for newly originated M&A-related loans under enhanced lender scrutiny. This improvement is further evident in positive stock return reactions to M&A deals financed by loans subject to enhanced lender scrutiny. As companies engage in fewer but higher-quality deals, they also experience higher returns on assets. Our findings highlight the importance of lender scrutiny in corporate M&A activities.

This paper studies how the COVID-19 shock affects the CDS spread changes and abnormal stock returns of U.S. firms with different levels of debt rollover risk. We use the COVID-19 crisis as a quasi-natural experiment of adverse cash flow shock that increases the default risk of firms facing an immediate liquidity shortfall. We find that the COVID-19 shock significantly increased the CDS spread and decreased the shareholder value for firms facing higher debt rollover risk. The effect is stronger for non-financial firms, for firms that are financially constrained, and for firms that are highly volatile. Moreover, we find that firms with immediate refinancing needs suffered more than firms with distant refinancing needs during the COVID-19 shock, which further confirms that firms’ debt rollover risk is indeed a key factor that drives the heterogenous reactions to the shock. The paper provides fresh insights into the role of firms’ debt rollover risk during the COVID-19 health crisis.

This article studies whether knowledge protection affects shareholder value and firms’ investment in knowledge assets using the staggered adoptions and rejections of the inevitable disclosure doctrine (IDD) by U.S. state courts as exogenous changes in the level of knowledge protection. We find positive (negative) abnormal stock returns around the IDD adoption (rejection) day for firms headquartered in the state, and we uncover a positive IDD treatment effect on firms’ investment in knowledge assets. Moreover, the effects on stock returns and knowledge assets investment are stronger in more knowledge-oriented industries and firms. Finally, enhancing knowledge protection does not discourage local entrepreneurial activity.

We investigate whether and how government interventions in the U.S. banking sector influence the stock market performance of corporate borrowers during the financial crisis of 2007–2009. We measure firms’ exposures to government interventions with an intervention score that is based on combined information on the firms’ structure of bank relationships and their banks’ participation in government capital support programs. We find that government capital infusions in banks have a significantly positive impact on borrowing firms’ stock returns. The effect is more pronounced for riskier and bank-dependent firms and for those that borrow from banks that are less capitalized and smaller.

We document that borrowers of banks that received capital support under TARP/CPP significantly increased their quarterly provision of trade credit (accounts receivable) during the crisis by 5.2%, while borrowers of other banks did not. The effect is strongest in 2008Q4, and larger for pre-crisis riskier, growth-oriented and bank-dependent firms and for firms that borrow from pre-crisis smaller, less profitable and better capitalized CPP banks. Our difference-in-differences analysis shows that the effect is caused by CPP and not by heterogeneity between firms, banks and time periods. Our study provides novel evidence that suggests a beneficial multiplier effect of bank bailouts.

We investigate whether and how firms manage their rollover risk by having a dispersed bond maturity structure (granularity). Granularity can be achieved or maintained by frequently issuing sets of bonds with different maturities. We find that firms with higher granularity have higher availability of financing, lower cost of financing, lower financial constraints and lower stock return volatility. The effects are stronger for firms that face higher rollover risk. The evidence suggests that spreading out bond maturities is an effective corporate policy to manage rollover risk.

We challenge the existing relationship lending literature on how banks manage their relationships with corporate borrowers during crises. We test theories of intertemporal smoothing during the closure period of the COVID-19 crisis when borrowers are in great need of relationship benefits. We find that relationship borrowers receive worse rather than more favorable loan contract terms than others during this period. These and other results provide novel evidence on the functioning of relationship lending during a pandemic and contrast existing evidence gleaned from banking and financial crises.