Abstract I develop a model of venture capital (VC) intermediation that quantitatively explains central empirical facts about VC activity and can evaluate its macroeconomic relevance. The impact of VC-backed innovations is significantly larger than suggested by observed aggregate venture exit valuations, even after accounting for large exposures to systematic and uninsurable idiosyncratic risks. The risk properties of venture capital play a quantitatively important role in both explaining empirical regularities and shaping the value of ventures’ contributions to economic growth. The model is analytically tractable and yields exact solutions, despite the presence of matching frictions, imperfect risk sharing, and endogenous growth. Received January 16, 2018; editorial decision November 7, 2018 by Editor Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh.

[I develop a model of venture capital (VC) intermediation that quantitatively explains central empirical facts about VC activity and can evaluate its macroeconomic relevance. The impact of VC-backed innovations is significantly larger than suggested by observed aggregate venture exit valuations, even after accounting for large exposures to systematic and uninsurable idiosyncratic risks. The risk properties of venture capital play a quantitatively important role in both explaining empirical regularities and shaping the value of ventures’ contributions to economic growth. The model is analytically tractable and yields exact solutions, despite the presence of matching frictions, imperfect risk sharing, and endogenous growth.]

[We examine how bank capital and borrower bargaining power affect loan spreads. Consistent with previous studies, higher bank capital has a negative impact on loan rates, but borrower cash flow has a significant effect on this impact: compared with high-capital banks, lowcapital banks charge more for borrowers with low cash flow, but offer greater marginal discounts as these borrowers’ cash flow rises. These effects are largely focused on more bank-dependent borrowers. We find some evidence that low-capital banks charge a higher premium for bank-dependent borrowers’ systematic risk, but not for their total equity risk or default risk.]

Mandated public dissemination of over-the-counter transactions in corporate debt securities via the TRACE system dramatically reduces the average short-term market reaction to rating downgrades by both issuer-paid and investor-paid rating agencies. Ratings become relatively more accurate predictors of default and more sensitive to innovations in credit spreads after the introduction of dissemination. However, in transparent markets, they provide no significant information about future defaults beyond that provided by credit spreads. Dissemination increases the efficiency of information aggregation and transmission in bond markets, thereby reducing the incremental information content of ratings and the price impact of rating revisions.

When Bayesian risk-averse investors are uncertain about their assets’ cash flows’ exposure to systematic risk, stock prices react to news more in downturns than in upturns, implying higher volatility in downturns and negatively skewed returns. In good times, less desirable assets with low average cash flows and high market risk perform similar to more desirable assets with high average cash flows and low market risk, rendering them difficult to distinguish. However, their performance diverges in downturns, enabling better inference. Consistent with these predictions, stocks’ reaction to earnings news is up to 70% stronger in downturns than in upturns. Received July 7, 2014; editorial decision March 20, 2018 by Editor Laura Starks. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Abstract We examine how bank capital and borrower bargaining power affect loan spreads. Consistent with previous studies, higher bank capital has a negative impact on loan rates, but borrower cash flow has a significant effect on this impact: compared with high-capital banks, low-capital banks charge more for borrowers with low cash flow, but offer greater marginal discounts as these borrowers’ cash flow rises. These effects are largely focused on more bank-dependent borrowers. We find some evidence that low-capital banks charge a higher premium for bank-dependent borrowers’ systematic risk, but not for their total equity risk or default risk. Received January 27, 2015; editorial decision July 7, 2018 by Editor Philip Strahan. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Our model shows that when regulation is based on credit ratings, banks with low charter value maximize shareholder value by minimizing capital and selecting identically rated loans and bonds with the highest systematic risk. This regulatory arbitrage is possible if the credit spreads on same-rated loans and bonds are greater when their systematic risk (debt beta) is higher. We empirically confirm this relationship between credit spreads, ratings, and debt betas. We also show that banks with lower capital select syndicated loans with higher debt betas and credit spreads. Banks with lower charter value choose overall assets with higher systematic risk. Received July 27, 2016; editorial decision May 29, 2018 by Editor Itay Goldstein.

Abstract We study the impact of index investing on firm performance by examining the link between commodity indices and firms that use index commodities. Around 2004, commodity index investing dramatically increased. This event is referred to as the financialization of commodity markets. Following financialization, firms that use index commodities make worse production decisions, earn 40% lower profits, and have 6% higher costs. Consistent with a feedback channel in which market participants learn from prices, our results suggest that index investing distorts the price signal, thereby generating a negative externality that impedes firms’ ability to make production decisions. Received March 31, 2017; editorial decision July 5, 2018 by Editor Itay Goldstein. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.