We analyze how countercyclical liquidity policy—via reserve requirements (RRs)—affects the credit cycle. For identification, we exploit supervisory credit register data and RR changes in Brazil made for monetary and macroprudential purposes and affecting banks differently. We find that countercyclical liquidity policy smooths credit supply cycles at the loan and firm levels. The effects of easing during crises are three times stronger than are those of tightening during booms, particularly for low-risk firms. We also explore interest rate policy. Credit supply effects are stronger among high-risk firms and during tightening, when interest rates are more effective than RRs.

We study the influence of multi-sector conglomerate firms on sectoral comovement. Using an innovative network model of firms and industries, we derive a novel measure of the co-concentration of industries in which two industries are more co-concentrated if they share greater exposure to the same conglomerate firms. Using time-series, cross-sectional, and longitudinal tests on establishment-level data from nearly all US firms over 1991 to 2019, we find that industries with higher co-concentration exhibit stronger comovement in employment, sales, and asset growth. Controlling for alternative explanations, a one-standard deviation increase in co-concentration corresponds to a 0.32-standard deviation increase in the comovement of employment growth. In variance-covariance decompositions, we find that firm-specific shocks explain nearly half of aggregate volatility and industry comovement and that conglomerates play a significant role in sectoral comovement. Our framework helps explain how idiosyncratic, firm-level shocks contribute to aggregate fluctuations and influence business cycles.

Employers often give employees general pay increases that are not tied to individual performance. These pay increases can either be unconditional fixed pay raises such as cost-of-living adjustments or be tied to risky firm-level measures of performance (e.g., profit-sharing). We use two experiments and a survey to investigate how employees' position in the firm's value chain affects their psychological ownership of the firm and subsequently their preferences for different types of pay increases. We find theory-consistent evidence that employees exhibit higher levels of psychological ownership of their organization when they add value to their firm's products and services directly (i.e., are primary workers who produce goods or services) rather than indirectly (i.e., are support workers such as janitorial or safety staff) and that this in turn increases their preferences for a profit-sharing pay increase relative to an unconditional pay increase. We discuss the implications of adopting a “value chain” perspective when designing employee compensation packages.

We use administrative data to measure sibling spillovers on academic performance before and after the introduction of Free Secondary Education (FSE) in Tanzania. Prior to FSE, students whose older siblings narrowly passed the secondary school entrance exam were less likely to go to secondary school themselves; with FSE, the effect became positive. A triple-differences analysis, using geographic variation in FSE exposure, shows that FSE caused the reversal. Mechanism analyses suggest that changes in parental investments were a more likely channel for this reversal than direct sibling interactions. By alleviating financial constraints, FSE allowed households to invest in more children.

Regulators around the world have begun to require investment companies to provide information regarding fossil fuel investments to external stakeholders. In this paper we examine whether such disclosures impact the investment portfolios and/or investment policies of the disclosing firms. Using a 2016 California disclosure mandate that required some U.S. insurance companies to disclose their fossil fuel investments on a public website, we find the disclosing insurers reduced their fossil fuel investments by approximately 20 % relative to the non-disclosers. Despite this on-average result, we note significant variation in changes to investment portfolios. We find insurers pressured by external stakeholders, including public shareholders and environmental activists, are more likely to divest. In contrast, enhanced Californian regulatory oversight power is unrelated to divesture. Even after the disclosure mandate is reversed, we find the disclosing insurers do not revert to their pre-policy holdings of fossil fuel investments, suggesting the impact created a longer-term change in investment behavior.

This paper develops the concept of a “crypto multiplier,” which measures the equilibrium response of a cryptocurrency’s market capitalization to aggregate inflows and outflows of investors’ funds. The crypto multiplier takes high values when a large share of a cryptocurrency’s coins is held as an investment rather than being used as a means of payment. Blockchain data show that the share of coins held for the purpose of making payments is rather small for major cryptocurrencies suggesting large crypto multipliers. Our results highlight the need for market participants to be vigilant when accepting block holdings of a cryptocurrency as collateral or as compensation for seed funding. The crypto multiplier indicates that the liquidation value of block holdings of cryptocurrencies can be substantially below their prevailing market values.

We investigate a dynamic oligopoly model with two phases: a normal phase where an essential input is available, and a disruption phase where firms must rely on inventories. Disruptions create an overcutting pricing incentive arising from the option to forgo sales and monopolize the market once rivals stock out. This monopoly option causes the price to jump to a supracompetitive level at the advent of the disruption and to remain above the competitive price path throughout. Price caps raise welfare, but reduce inventory investment. Government reserves reduce prices and raise buffer stocks, as do reserve mandates when financially feasible.

The digital evolution in auditing has triggered a rapid shift in auditors' required skill sets, with audit firms heavily investing in and extolling advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. However, this strong emphasis on newly required digital skills can lead many experienced auditors, who perceive these competencies as their weaker areas, to feel disaffirmed in their abilities. We predict and find, across two experiments, that auditors who feel disaffirmed in their digital skills more defensively discount specialist advice that places higher versus lower reliance on AI, but that an intervention in which auditors affirm their traditional audit skills mitigates this defensive reaction. Absent self‐affirmation, higher specialist reliance on AI results in auditors denigrating the competence and quality of advice that specialists provide. These findings suggest that disaffirmation escalates AI aversion, offering important insights into how audit firms can foster less defensive decision‐making in the rapidly evolving audit environment.