We examine whether U.S. banks subject to the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) reduce lending (an unintended consequence) and/or become more resilient to liquidity shocks, as intended by regulators. We find that LCR banks tighten lending standards, and reduce liquidity creation that occurs mainly through lower lending relative to non-LCR banks. However, covered banks also contribute less to fire-sale externalities relative to exempt banks. For LCR banks, we estimate that the total after-tax benefits of reduced fire-sale risk (net of the costs associated with foregone lending) exceed $50 billion from 2013Q2 to 2017, mostly accruing to the largest LCR banks. Non-LCR regulations enacted during our sample period cannot fully account for these findings. For the banking sector as a whole, lending migrates to smaller, non-LCR banks so that lending shares increase but fire-sale risk does not decrease. Our results highlight the trade-off between liquidity creation and resiliency arising from liquidity regulations that underlie the debate on whether the LCR should be extended following the banking crisis of March 2023.

We study four fundamental components of financial agency settings: The perception of commonly used investment profile terminology, agents’ customization of portfolios to clients’ preferences, the effect of agents’ and clients’ preferences on investment levels, and the role of compensation schemes. We observe large heterogeneity in the perception of investment profiles, resulting in substantial miscommunication between clients and agents. Financial agents show a high willingness to implement their clients’ preferred investment profiles, yet appear to fail because of deviating perceptions. Agents’ own investment preferences matter, but take a back seat to clients’ preferences in determining investment shares. Different monetary incentive schemes hardly affect behavior. Our results suggest that moral constraints can limit agents’ discretion in the agency situation.

We document a capital supply channel in peer effects, for the case of SEOs. Firms accelerate their SEOs – they have higher SEO hazards – when more of their peers conducted an SEO within the prior six months. The effect is stronger among older yet constrained firms than among younger yet unconstrained firms. It is also stronger after Russell index shocks that likely reduce indexer demand for a firm's equity. We document evidence of a potential underlying mechanism; information conveyed by underwriters that recently marketed SEOs of peers, thus reducing asymmetric information costs.