Knowledge that Transforms

This paper investigates whether competition affects the degree of optimism in recommendations on Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) issued by affiliated sell-side analysts. Competition is measured by the number of unaffiliated analysts covering the IPO. Since the measure of competition is likely to be endogenous, it is instrumented using the number of analysts who cover stocks in the same industry as the IPO, one quarter before the one in which the recommendation is issued. The results show that affiliated analysts issue less optimistic recommendations when more unaffiliated analysts cover the IPO, suggesting that competition has a causal effect in mitigating the incentives of affiliated analysts to issue favorable investment recommendations. The paper also shows that recommendations issued by analysts affiliated with co-managers of the IPO are significantly less optimistic than those issued by analysts affiliated with the lead underwriter, and that competition affects only the degree of optimism of the latter.

This paper analyzes board independence and competence as distinct, but inextricably linked aspects of board effectiveness. Competent directors add shareholder value because they have better information about the quality of projects. While a CEO cares about shareholder value, he also wants his board to behave loyally to him by agreeing to projects that give him private benefits. Because many aspects of the CEO-board relationship are not contractible, the paper studies a model of relational contracts, a tool that has hitherto been rarely used in work on corporate governance. The analysis reveals a tradeoff: Inefficient loyalty is endogenously easier to obtain from a less competent board. The implied conflict of interest between shareholders and the CEO is particularly pronounced in difficult times. Fortunately, the tradeoff does not arise with respect to efficient loyalty. Several empirical predictions flow from the model, some of which explain existing empirical facts while others are new.

Using an effort-sharing framework for VC syndicates, we assess how syndication impacts investment returns, chances of successful exit, and the time taken to exit. With data from 1980 to 2003, and applying apposite econometrics for endogeneity to these different performance measures, we are able to ascribe much of the better return to selection, with the value-addition by monitoring role significantly impacting the likelihood and time of exit. While the extant literature on Venture Capital (VC) syndication is divided about the relative importance of the “selection” and “value-add” hypotheses, we find that their roles are complementary.

We study the money flows into and out of socially responsible investment (SRI) funds around the world. In their investment decisions, investors in SRI funds may be more concerned with ethical or social issues than with fund performance. Therefore, SRI money flows are less related to past fund returns. Ethical money is less sensitive to past negative returns than are conventional fund flows, especially when SRI funds primarily use negative or Sin/Ethical screens. Social attributes of SRI funds weaken the relation between money inflows and past positive returns. However, money flows into funds with environmental screens are more sensitive to past positive returns than are conventional fund flows. Stock picking based on in-house SRI research increases the money flows. These results give evidence on the role of nonfinancial attributes, which induce heterogeneity of investor clienteles within SRI funds. We find no evidence of a smart money effect, as the funds that receive more inflows neither outperform nor underperform their benchmarks or conventional funds.

This paper studies the relationship between the endogenous arrival of investors to a market and liquidity in a search-based model of asset trading. Entry of investors causes two contradictory effects. First, it reduces trading costs, which attracts new investors (externality effect). But secondly, as investors concentrate on one side of the market, the market becomes “congested,” decreasing the returns to investing and discouraging new investors from entering (congestion effect). The equilibrium level of liquidity depends on which of the two effects dominates. When congestion is the leading effect, some interesting results arise. In particular, diminishing trading costs can deteriorate liquidity and welfare.

This paper examines national regulators’ incentives to intervene in a multinational bank’s activities and the extent to which these incentives differ with the bank’s foreign representation choice (branch or subsidiary). Shared liability leads to higher incentives for intervention than legal separation. Cross-border deposit insurance, on the other hand, yields less intervention than when regulators compensate local depositors only. Based on these results, we derive implications for multinational banks’ and regulators’ preference on foreign expansion and representation.

Loan rates for seemingly identical borrowers often exhibit substantial dispersion. This paper investigates the determinants of the dispersion in interest rates on loans granted by banks to small and medium sized enterprises. We associate this dispersion with the loan officers’ use of “discretion” in the loan rate setting process. We find that “discretion” is most important if: (i) loans are small and unsecured; (ii) firms are small and opaque; (iii) the firm operates in a large and highly concentrated banking market; and (iv) the firm is distantly located from the lender. Consistent with the proliferation of information-technologies in the banking industry, we find a decreasing role for “discretion” over time in the provision of small credits to opaque firms. While widely used in the pricing of loans, “discretion” plays only a minor role in the decisions to grant loans.

Banks increasingly use short-term wholesale funds to supplement traditional retail deposits. Existing literature mainly points to the “bright side” of wholesale funding: sophisticated financiers can monitor banks, disciplining bad but refinancing good ones. This paper models a “dark side” of wholesale funding. In an environment with a costless but noisy public signal on bank project quality, short-term wholesale financiers have lower incentives to conduct costly monitoring, and instead may withdraw based on negative public signals, triggering inefficient liquidations. Comparative statics suggest that such distortions of incentives are smaller when public signals are less relevant and project liquidation costs are higher, e.g., when banks hold mostly relationship-based small business loans.