We estimate the indirect costs of financial distress due to lost sales by exploiting real estate (RE) shocks and cross-supplier variation in RE assets and leverage. We show that for the same client buying from different suppliers, the client’s purchases from distressed suppliers decline by an additional 13% following a drop in local RE prices. The effect is more pronounced in more competitive industries, manufacturing, durable goods, less-specific goods, and when the costs of switching suppliers are low. Our results suggest that clients reduce their exposure to suppliers in financial distress.

The dramatic increase in the percentage of mutual funds lending equities suggests that lending fees are an increasingly important source of income for investment advisors. We find that funds that lend equities underperform otherwise similar funds in spite of lending income. The effect of lending is concentrated in funds that cannot act on the short-selling signal due investment restrictions set by the fund family to diversify their fund offerings across styles. Our findings suggest that the family organization explains why fund managers lend, rather than sell, stocks with short selling demand.

We show that credit rating agencies can influence political elections. We find that incumbent political parties experience an increase in their vote shares following municipal bond upgrades. The evidence is consistent with rating agencies affecting elections indirectly by expanding local governments’ debt capacity and directly through an impact on voters’ perceptions of the quality of incumbent politicians. To identify these effects, we examine election outcomes within neighboring counties by exploiting exogenous variation in municipal bond ratings due to Moody’s recalibration of its scale in 2010.

We use a new data set to study the determinants of the performance of open–end actively managed equity mutual funds in 27 countries. We find that mutual funds underperform the market overall. The results show important differences in the determinants of fund performance in the USA and elsewhere in the world. The US evidence of diminishing returns to scale is not a universal truth as the performance of funds located outside the USA and funds that invest overseas is not negatively affected by scale. Our findings suggest that the adverse scale effects in the USA are related to liquidity constraints faced by funds that, by virtue of their style, have to invest in small and domestic stocks. Country characteristics also explain fund performance. Funds located in countries with liquid stock markets and strong legal institutions display better performance.