Knowledge that Transforms

In this paper, we examine whether the structure of the chief executive officer’s (CEO) compensation package can explain default risk and performance in bank holding companies (BHCs) during the recent credit crisis. Using a sample of 371 BHCs, we show that in 2006 higher holdings of inside debt relative to inside equity by a CEO after controlling for firm leverage is associated with lower default risk and better performance during the crisis period. We present evidence that before the crisis banks with higher inside debt ratios also have supervisory ratings that indicate stronger capital positions, better management, stronger earnings, and being in a better position to withstand market shocks in the future. Such ex-ante evidence can explain the observed relationship between inside debt, default risk, and performance during the crisis.

This paper investigates the role of off-balance sheet securitization on US bank leverage pro-cyclicality. Effective leverage (taking into account off-balance sheet securitization) is especially relevant for the US, where GAAP accounting rules for securitization allowed until 2009 a underestimation of on balance sheet items. Over 2001–2010, we document that US BHCs which are more involved in securitization have a more pro-cyclical leverage. We also show that in the pre-crisis period securitization dominates the business model in determining the leverage pro-cyclicality to the point that even commercial banks highly involved in securitization had a pro-cyclical behavior. We document that the period-long relation between securitization and capital ratios was week. The effect on leverage pro-cyclicality of the 2004 changes in regulation (the new SEC net capital rule and the exemption from the FASB directive on consolidation of SPVs) was absent for investment banks, and mixed for commercial banks highly involved in securitization. The evidence of this paper supports the view of the Basel III committee that macro-prudential regulation must include constraints on effective leverage.

In this paper, we analyze the effect of the conversion price of CoCo bonds on equity holders’ incentives. First, we use an option-pricing context to show that CoCo bonds can magnify equity holders’ incentives to increase the riskiness of assets and decrease incentives to raise new equity in a crisis in cases in which conversion transfers wealth from CoCo bond holders to equity holders. Second, we present a clinical study of the CoCo bonds issued so far. We show that (i) almost all existing CoCo bonds are designed in a way that implies a wealth transfer from CoCo bond holders to equity holders at conversion and (ii) this contractual design is reflected in traded prices of CoCo bonds. In particular, CoCo bonds are short volatility with a magnitude five times greater than that which can be observed for straight bonds. These results are robust and economically significant. We conclude that the CoCo bonds issued so far can create perverse incentives for banks’ equity holders.

We study how firms engaged in both R&D and fixed investment manage liquidity and adjust real investment during the recent financial crisis. Among firms with positive R&D expenditures, cuts to fixed investment in the crisis are typically far more severe than cuts to R&D. These firms allocate cash reserves to buffer R&D but do not use cash to protect fixed investment. Some firms appear to go so far as to allow the stock of fixed assets to fall to stabilize R&D. The use of cash holdings and fixed assets to protect R&D is particularly strong among firms most likely to face financing frictions at the start of the crisis. We only find evidence that firms use cash to buffer fixed investment when we expand the sample to include firms with no R&D spending to compete for funds. Our study provides direct evidence on the real effects of liquidity management, highlights a key benefit of precautionary cash reserves, and illustrates the adjustments firms make to navigate a financial crisis.

Is financial innovation necessary for sustaining economic growth? To address this question, we build a Schumpeterian model in which entrepreneurs earn profits by inventing better goods and profit-maximizing financiers arise to screen entrepreneurs. The model has two novel features. First, financiers engage in the costly but potentially profitable process of innovation: they can invent better methods for screening entrepreneurs. Second, every screening process becomes less effective as technology advances. The model predicts that technological innovation and economic growth eventually stop unless financiers innovate. Empirical evidence is consistent with this dynamic, synergistic model of financial and technological innovation.

We examine earnings forecasts by sell-side analysts employed by a bank with a lending relationship with the covered firms. We find that lender-affiliated analysts’ forecasts are more accurate than forecasts by their unaffiliated peers after establishment of the lending relationship. Evidence from exogenous variation suggests that the relationship is causal. Lender-affiliated analysts are also more likely to issue pessimistic forecasts below their peers’ consensus. These forecasts are likely to be followed by below-consensus earnings. The results suggest that lender-affiliated analysts enjoy an informational advantage that spills over from lending activities of banks.

This paper develops a theory of strategic information disclosure with disagreement. Managers of firms are voluntarily communicating subjective information, and prior beliefs about the strategy to maximize project value are rational but heterogeneous, potentially generating fundamental disagreement. Three main results are derived. First, not all firms disclose (subjective) information about strategy. Second, more valuable firms, and those whose strategies investors are more likely to agree with, disclose less information in equilibrium. Third, improved corporate governance leads to lower executive compensation and less information disclosure. An implication of the analysis for banks is that greater strategic information disclosure may increase the probability of bank runs—banks may choose to be opaque because transparency makes them fragile.