[This paper studies how financial inclusion affects wealth accumulation. Exploiting the U.S. interstate branching deregulation between 1994 and 2005, we find that an exogenous expansion of bank branches increases low-income household financial inclusion. We then show that financial inclusion fosters household wealth accumulation. Relative to their unbanked counterparts, banked households accumulate assets in interest-bearing accounts, invest more in durable assets, such as vehicles, have a better access to debt, and have a lower probability of facing financial strain. The results suggest that promoting financial inclusion for low-income populations can improve household wealth accumulation and financial security.]

This paper studies how financial inclusion affects wealth accumulation. Exploiting the U.S. interstate branching deregulation between 1994 and 2005, we find that an exogenous expansion of bank branches increases low-income household financial inclusion. We then show that financial inclusion fosters household wealth accumulation. Relative to their unbanked counterparts, banked households accumulate assets in interest-bearing accounts, invest more in durable assets, such as vehicles, have a better access to debt, and have a lower probability of facing financial strain. The results suggest that promoting financial inclusion for low-income populations can improve household wealth accumulation and financial security. Received April 13, 2017; editorial decision November 14, 2018 by Editor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh.

We study how relationship lending determines the financing of innovation. Exploiting a negative shock to relationships, we show that it reduces the number of innovative firms, especially those that depend more on relationship lending such as small, opaque firms. This credit supply shock leads to reallocation of inventors whereby young and productive inventors leave small firms and move out of geographical areas where lending relationships are hurt. Overall, our results show that credit markets affect both the level of innovation activity and the distribution of innovative human capital across the economy.

We study how relationship lending determines the financing of innovation. Exploiting a negative shock to relationships, we show that it reduces the number of innovative firms, especially those that depend more on relationship lending such as small, opaque firms. This credit supply shock leads to reallocation of inventors whereby young and productive inventors leave small firms and move out of geographical areas where lending relationships are hurt. Overall, our results show that credit markets affect both the level of innovation activity and the distribution of innovative human capital across the economy.Received April 11, 2013; editorial decision May 25, 2016 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

Since the finance industry is transforming into a data industry, measuring the quantity of data investors have about various assets is important. Informed by a structural model, we develop such a cross-sectional measure. We show how our measure differs from price informativeness and use it to document a new fact: data about large high-growth firms is becoming increasingly abundant, relative to data about other firms. Our structural model offers an explanation for this data divergence: large high-growth firms’ data became more valuable, as big firms got bigger and growth magnified the effect of these changes in size.

Firms significantly reduce their investment in response to nonfundamental drops in the stock price of their product-market peers. We argue that this results stems from managers’ limited ability to filter out the noise in the stock prices when using them as signals about their investment opportunities. Ensuing losses of capital investment and shareholders’ wealth are economically large and even affect firms not facing severe financing constraints or agency problems. Our findings offer a novel perspective on how stock market inefficiencies can affect the real economy, even in the absence of financing or agency frictions.Received December 14, 2016; editorial decision July 30, 2018 by Editor Itay Goldstein.