This study tests whether mutual fund shareholders continue to trade in response to fund returns after they make their initial investment in fund shares. It decomposes the relationship between fund returns and shareholder flow in a large, proprietary panel of all shareholder transactions in one midsize no-load mutual fund family. Results show that both new and old shareholders buy shares during periods of good returns; however, shareholder outflow is essentially unrelated to fund returns. This lack of a return-sell relationship is not driven by locked-in pension assets, shareholders’ ignorance of ongoing fund returns, or embedded capital gains. However, there is evidence that exchanges between equity funds in the family are related more strongly to returns of the destination fund than to returns of the origination fund. This may indicate that flow between equity mutual funds is driven by shareholders buying new funds rather than selling old funds. Supermarket shareholders are smart insofar as they exchange into funds that subsequently outperform their prior funds during their individual holding periods.

Using variation in payday lending restrictions over time and across states, we study competition in the market for small, short-term consumer loans. We find that banks and credit unions reduce overdraft credit limits and prices when payday credit, a possible substitute, is prohibited. These findings suggest that depositories respond to payday loan bans by taking less risk, bouncing checks that they would have otherwise covered. The decline in overdraft prices is surprising when viewed in isolation, but sensible given that depositories incur lower credit losses as they limit overdraft coverage. We find some evidence that credit unions’ overdraft activities are more profitable when payday loans are prohibited, consistent with decreased competition. In addition to characterizing the impact of prohibiting payday lending, a common state policy change in recent years, our findings illuminate competition in the small-dollar loan market by highlighting the importance of non-price adjustments to credit offers.

Existing regulatory capital requirements are often criticized for only being loosely linked to the economic risk of the banks' assets. In view of the attempts of international regulators to introduce more risk sensitive capital requirements, we theoretically examine the effect of specific regulatory capital requirements on the risk-taking behavior of banks. More precisely, we develop a continuous time framework where the banks' choice of asset risk is endogenously determined. We compare regulation based on the Basel I building block approach to value-at-risk or ‘internal model’-based capital requirements with respect to risk taking behavior, deposit insurance liability, and shareholder value. The main findings are: (i) value-at-risk-based capital regulation creates a stronger incentive to reduce asset risk when banks are solvent, (ii) solvent banks that reduce their asset risk reduce the current value of the deposit insurance liability significantly, (iii) under value-at-risk regulation the risk reduction behavior of banks is less sensitive to changes in their investment opportunity set, and (iv) banks' equityholders can benefit from risk-based capital requirements.

We review the literature on financial intermediation in the process by which new medical therapeutics are financed, developed, and delivered. We discuss the contributing factors that lead to a key finding in the literature—underinvestment in biomedical R&D—and focus on the role that banks and other intermediaries can play in financing biomedical R&D and potentially closing this funding gap. We conclude with a discussion of the role of financial intermediation in the delivery of healthcare to patients.

Financial institutions are financed by both investors and customers. Investors expect an appropriate risk-adjusted return for providing financing and risk bearing. Customers, in contrast, provide financing in exchange for specific services, and want the service fulfillment to be free of the intermediary's credit risk. We develop a framework that defines the roles of customers and investors in intermediaries, and use it to build an economic theory that has the following main findings. First, with positive net social surplus in the intermediary-customer relationship, the efficient (first best) contract completely insulates the customer from the intermediary's credit risk, thereby exposing the customer only to the risk inherent in the contract terms. Second, when intermediaries face financing frictions, the second-best contract may expose the customer to some intermediary credit risk, generating “customer contract fulfillment” costs. Third, the efficiency loss associated with these costs in the second best rationalizes government guarantees like deposit insurance even when there is no threat of bank runs. We further discuss the implications of this customer-investor nexus for numerous issues related to the design of contracts between financial intermediaries and their customers, the sharing of risks between them, ex ante efficient institutional design, regulatory practices, and the evolving boundaries between banks and financial markets.

The on-going reform of the Basel Accord relies on three “pillars”: a new capital adequacy requirement, supervisory review and market discipline. This article develops a simple continuous-time model of commercial banks' behavior where interaction between these three instruments can be analyzed. We study the conditions under which market discipline can reduce the minimum capital requirements needed to prevent moral hazard. We also discuss regulatory forbearance issues.

Financial relationships can alleviate the adverse effects of asymmetric information and agency costs on outside stakeholders. We examine announcement returns to PIPE transactions, conditional on the contract terms and identity of the investor. We find that the influence of contract terms on announcement returns depends on investor identity. For PIPEs with hedge fund investors, the inclusion of control terms associates with much larger announcement returns. In contrast, announcement returns for PIPEs, involving strategic investors, are less dependent on the existence of control terms. We find the opposite for liquidity terms. Namely, announcement returns are dramatically different for strategic investors with and without liquidity terms, while inclusion of liquidity terms is less influential when PIPEs involve hedge funds. Our findings suggest that investor identity and contract terms jointly influence market reactions to PIPEs.

We document strong weekly lead-lag return predictability across stocks from different industries with no customer-supplier linkages (economically unrelated stocks). Between 1980 and 2010, the industry-neutral long-short hedge portfolio earns an average of over 19 basis points per week. This predictability is related to common institutional ownership and is distinct from previously documented lead-lag effects. Common institutional ownership is a complementary rather than a substitute explanation for return predictability. Information linkages are enough to induce return predictability among stocks in the same industry, but economically unrelated stocks exhibit return predictability only when they have common institutional owners. Our findings suggest that institutional portfolio reallocations can induce return predictability among otherwise unrelated stocks.