We use bank-firm matched data to study how the capital buffers that large U.S. banks must satisfy to “pass” the Federal Reserve's stress tests impact banks’ lending and firms’ loan volumes, overall debt, investment, and employment. We find that larger stress-test capital buffers lead to reductions in banks’ lending, modest increases in loan rates and spreads, and reductions in new loan originations. However, we do not find an impact of higher capital buffers on firms’ overall debt, investment, and employment, suggesting that firms find other credit sources to substitute for the reduction in loans from banks that participate in the stress tests.

We examine the relation between venture capital (VC) investments, M&A activity, and merger competition laws in 45 countries around the world. We find evidence of a strong positive association between VC investments and lagged M&A activity, consistent with an active M&A market providing viable exit opportunities for VC companies and therefore incentives for venture capitalists to invest. We also explore the effects of country-level merger competition laws and pro-takeover legislation passed internationally on VC activity. We find significant reductions in VC activity in countries with stricter competition laws and find that VC activity intensifies after the enactment of country-level takeover-friendly legislation.

How does lending-market competitiveness shape new firms’ financing? Using a unique U.S. representative panel of new firms, we document that in more concentrated local lending markets: (a) new firms are less likely to access credit; (b) new firms have lower leverage; and (c) the best-performing firms are more severely affected by reduced debt financing. We develop a contingent-claims model with monopolistically competitive banks that rationalizes these facts and shows how credit-market conditions determine loan fees and concentration. Our findings highlight banks’ market power as a channel through which the financial sector influences firms’ development and, hence, economic growth.

M. Lee Pelton of The Boston Foundation reviews “What Universities Owe Democracy” by By Ronald J. Daniels. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Promotes the argument that colleges and universities are essential to the flourishing of liberal democracy, suggesting that these institutions have a responsibility to act in defense of the liberal democratic experiment.”

We examine the relative importance of audit firm versus partner decision styles in key audit matter (KAM) reporting. Standard setters intended KAMs to increase the usefulness of the audit report by requiring the partner‐led engagement team to disclose engagement‐specific information about the most significant judgments they made during the audit. However, stakeholders expressed widespread concern that audit firms' longstanding efforts toward standardization would result in generic KAMs at the audit firm level and provide partners little opportunity or incentive for engagement‐specific reporting. We evaluate this high‐stakes tension between standard setters' goals for audit reporting and auditors' deep‐rooted practices by leveraging data from the United Kingdom, which has required partner identification since 2009 and expanded audit reports since 2013. We find that clients sharing the same partner receive KAMs that are 10% more textually similar than clients with different partners. In contrast, clients sharing the same audit firm receive KAMs that are just 2% more textually similar than clients with different audit firms. This implies that partner decision styles are more important in influencing KAM outcomes than audit firm styles. Collectively, our results suggest that partners make unique KAM reporting judgments, countering concerns that audit firms' efforts toward standardization will yield boilerplate KAMs. This evidence extends the literature on expanded audit reporting and partner decision styles and provides valuable insights into a contemporary issue in audit regulation with broader implications for understanding dynamics within the profession.

This study empirically examines whether firms reclassify related-party payments to avoid the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). We leverage the BEAT filing threshold and use both a difference-in-differences design among U.S. firms and a triple-difference design utilizing the parent company's location to provide evidence that firms reclassify related-party payments to avoid the BEAT. This effect is stronger in firms with greater pre-TCJA income shifting incentives. We estimate a $6 billion aggregate reduction in U.S. taxes for our sample firms in 2018. We also examine the consequences of reclassifying related-party payments and find some evidence of an increase in tax reserves and a reduction in internal information quality for firms that engage in cost reclassification to avoid the BEAT. These findings help explain observed BEAT collection shortfalls, contribute to the current policy debate about international tax reform, and document spillover effects of tax policy.

We provide a joint non-parametric test to gather insights on the boundaries of applicability of Stochastic Discount Factor (SDF) models. We find that a non-trivial class of models cannot price the U.S. stock market equally weighted portfolio, implying non-monotonic SDFs, especially over the last 50/60 years in (recessionary) periods characterized by higher market volatility. Stocks responsible for this rejection mostly belong to the smallest NYSE market cap decile, are characterized by high idiosyncratic risk, and typically cannot be priced via SDF models where the aggregate level of risk aversion is bigger then 9 or 10. Excluding these stocks increases the ability to explain the cross-section of returns without impairing the ability to span the mean–variance frontier.

We show that Theorem 4 in Hansen (2022) applies to exactly the same class of estimators as does the classical Aitken theorem. We furthermore point out that Theorems 5–7 in Hansen (2022) contain extra assumptions not present in the classical Gauss–Markov or Aitken theorem, and thus the former theorems do not contain the latter ones as special cases.