The financial crisis prompted widespread interest in developing a better understanding of how capital regulation drives bank behavior. This paper uses a unique, comprehensive database of regulatory capital requirements on all UK banks to examine their effects on capital, lending and balance sheet management behavior. We find that capital requirements that include firm-specific, time-varying add-ons set by supervisors affect banks’ desired capital ratios and that resulting adjustments to capital and lending depend on the gap between actual and target ratios. We use these results to measure the effects of a capital regime that includes features similar to those embedded in the UK framework. Our results suggest that countercyclical capital requirements may be less effective in slowing credit activity when banks can readily satisfy them with lower-quality (lower-costing) capital elements versus higher-quality common equity. Given the size of the UK banking sector and the global nature of many of the largest institutions in the UK banking sector, the results have implications for the ongoing debate surrounding the design and calibration of international capital standards.

In contrast to the previously documented cross-border discount, we find that there is positive cross-border effect for US acquirers during late 1990s and early 2000s. This is especially particular the case for those that acquire/merge with targets from segmented financial markets where acquirers experience significantly higher positive abnormal returns than those that acquire targets from integrated financial markets. Furthermore, firms acquiring segmented-market targets are also characterized by significantly higher post-merger operating performance improvement. The results indicate that the observed positive cross-border effect is mainly due to the increase in the number of transactions involving targets from segmented markets, in which the average firm experience significant financial constraints. We contend that value is created by a combination of firms with different financial market integration status, in which funds are provided to high cost firms. The finding that the value creation is even higher within the group of acquirers with a lower cost of capital provides additional support for our conjecture.

Using a sample of foreign acquisitions of US targets, this study examines the extent to which cross-listing in the US leads to legal and regulatory bonding, and/or whether reputational bonding proxied by financial intermediaries monitoring, an often ignored component of the bonding mechanism, is an important factor in US investors decision to hold shares in cross-listed firms. We find that compared to US firms, cross-listed firms are less likely to use equity in takeovers of US targets. Further, cross-listed firms from countries with poorer legal protections are less likely to finance with equity and pay higher premiums than cross-listed firms from countries with better legal protections. Using analysts’ coverage and institutional following as proxies for financial intermediary monitoring, we find some support for the importance of reputational bonding. The evidence suggests that while cross-listing reduces barriers to investment, there are limits to its ability to completely subsume both the legal environment and the importance of the monitoring of financial intermediaries. This further suggests that the extent of actual legal and regulatory bonding by cross-listed firms may be more limited than often assumed.

Using Roberts (2015) loan-level data from 2000 to 2011, we find that the inception of CDS trading on reference firms’ debt is associated with a decreased number and lower probability of amendments, restatements, and rollovers to existing lenders of bank loans. Reference firms are also less likely to terminate loans prematurely or refinance with different lenders after the inception of CDS trading and tend to exhibit longer loan maturities. Our evidence is consistent with the empty creditor problem arising from CDS trading and the resulting decrease in the negotiation power of borrowers. Our research contributes to understanding how financial innovations alter bank-lending relationships.

We examine how bank-specific capital requirements affect banks’ capital ratios and balance sheet composition over the period 1989-2013. We find that higher requirements, even when not binding in a regulatory sense, result in higher bank capital ratios, achieved by a combination of asset contraction, risk reduction and capital raising strategies. We find that after the 2007-09 financial crisis, banks place greater emphasis on raising capital, but that they continue to focus first on raising lower-quality capital. Our results have implications for evaluating the efficacy of bank-specific capital requirements as a policy tool to influence bank balance sheet behavior and resilience.

This paper examines the impact of changes in job security on corporate innovation in 20 non-U.S. OECD countries. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we provide firm-level evidence that the enhancement of labor protection has a negative impact on innovation. We then discuss possible channels and find that employee-friendly labor reforms induce inventor shirking and a distortion in labor flow. Further investigation reveals that the negative relation is more pronounced in (1) firms that heavily rely on external financing, (2) firms that have high R&D intensity, (3) manufacturing industries, and (4) civil-law countries. Our micro-level evidence indicates that enhanced employment protection impedes corporate innovation.

We examine the impact of analyst coverage on corporate tax aggressiveness. To address endogeneity concerns, we perform a difference-in-differences analysis using a setting which causes exogenous decreases in analyst coverage. Our tests identify a negative causal effect of analyst coverage on tax aggressiveness, suggesting that higher analyst coverage constrains corporate tax aggressiveness. Further cross-sectional variation tests find that this constraining effect on tax aggressiveness is more pronounced in firms with lower investor recognition and firms with more opaque information environments. Our results are consistent with the notion that higher analyst coverage increases the visibility of aggressive tax planning behavior as well as heightens analysts’ demand for more transparent information, which in turn reduces tax aggressiveness.