This study examines differences in finance research productivity and influence across 661 academic institutions over the five year period from 1989 through 1993. We find that 40 institutions account for over 50% of all articles published by 16 leading journals over the five year period; 66 institutions account for two-thirds of the articles. Influence is more skewed with as few as 20 institutions accounting for 50% of all citations to articles in these journals. The number of publications and publication influence increase with faculty size and academic accreditation. Prestigious business schools are associated with high publication productivity and influence.

ABSTRACT Previous research demonstrates that a firm's common stock price tends to fall when it issues new public securities. By contrast, commercial bank loans elicit significantly positive borrower returns. This article investigates whether the lender's identity influences the market's reaction to a loan announcement. Although we find no significant difference between the market's response to bank and nonbank loans, we do find that lenders with a higher credit rating are associated with larger abnormal borrower returns. This evidence complements earlier findings that an auditor's or investment banker's perceived “quality” signals valuable information about firm value to uninformed market investors.

Previous research demonstrates that a firm's common stock price tends to fall when it issues new public securities. By contrast, commercial bank loans elicit significantly positive borrower returns. This article investigates whether the lender's identity influences the market's reaction to a loan announcement. Although we find no significant difference between the market's response to bank and nonbank loans, we do find that lenders with a higher credit rating are associated with larger abnormal borrower returns. This evidence complements earlier findings that an auditor's or investment banker's perceived “quality” signals valuable information about firm value to uninformed market investors.

Regulatory programs that restrict output levels often impose restrictions on the transfer of rights to produce or to use particular inputs. In this paper, we use a unique cross-section, time-series data set from North Carolina to quantify the welfare effects of transfer restrictions for poundage quota under the U.S. flue-cured tobacco program. We find that the deadweight costs of such restrictions are small but that the distributional effects are substantial. We analyze congressional testimony on quota transfer legislation and conclude that our estimates of the distributional effects are consistent with expressed views of market participants.