I study how firms deal with business regulations that limit their operations. I first show that the ownership structure of a firm affects its degree of compliance with regulations, with publicly listed firms complying more than privately held ones. This differential compliance imposes a burden on listed firms that helps explain mergers and acquisitions patterns. When regulatory levels increase, private firms acquire listed ones and listed firms stop acquiring private ones. These results uncover an additional cost faced by listed companies, identify a new driver of M&A transactions, and show that high levels of regulation lead to opaque corporate structures.

Panic-based (non-fundamental) spikes in depositors’ attention can be a source of bank fragility in theory, but separating such spikes from underlying fundamentals is challenging empirically. Using online search data, we show that during the Global Financial Crisis, UK banks facing surges in attention respond by increasing retail deposit rates, but only for instant withdrawal deposits. Exploiting variation across brands owned by the same bank (and thus sharing the same fundamentals), we find that banks respond even when surges are not justified by fundamentals. In addition, comparing onshore and offshore deposits by the same brand, we show that bank response is substantially stronger when the lack of deposit insurance and a larger presence of wholesale depositors magnifies potential losses to depositors.

In the United States, a significant number of criminal defendants are held in pretrial detention and face substantial financial burdens. Matching individual-level criminal case records to household-level financial data, we exploit the quasi-random assignment of court commissioners to study how pretrial detention affects household solvency. We find that pretrial detention results in higher rates of household insolvency, driven by higher rates of chapter 7 bankruptcies and judgment liens, and higher foreclosure rates during periods of decreasing house prices. We document that the effects spill over to family members and show that home equity can cushion households from insolvency.

This paper examines the effects of targeted credit rationing by banks on firms likely to generate negative externalities. We exploit an initiative of the U.S. Department of Justice, labeled Operation Choke Point, which compelled banks to limit relationships with firms in controversial industries. Using supervisory loan-level data, we show that, as intended, targeted banks reduced lending and terminated relationships with affected firms. However, most of these firms fully substituted credit through nontargeted banks under similar terms. Overall, we find no significant shifts in the performance and investment of affected firms, suggesting that targeted credit rationing is widely ineffective in promoting change.